Allahabad High Court
Shyodayal Singh And 8 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 11 August, 2014
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 21
A.F.R.
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41474 of 2014
Petitioner :- Shyodayal Singh And 8 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Udit Chandra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.C.Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.C. Dwivedi for the respondents.
Sri Chandra submits that a similar writ petition has been entertained being Writ Petition No.28131 of 2014 in relation to the same notification arising out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
We have perused the said order and it proceeds on the argument that the issue that the land was notified for one purpose and is being utilized for another has not been considered in the judgment of the Apex Court dated 6.12.2013.
We are unable to agree with this argument for the simple reason that the Apex Court with regard to the same notification has held as follows :-
"ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.5 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).34522/2013
(From the judgement and order dated 04/09/2013 in WP No.46761/2013 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)
RAJENDRA SINGH KARDAM & ORS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P & ORS Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and prayer for interim relief)
WITH SLP(C) NO. 34531 of 2013
(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and prayer for interim relief and office report)
Date: 06/12/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
It is a well settled principle that the land acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged at a belated stage. We do not find any merit in these petitions. The special leave petitions are therefore dismissed.
(O.P. Sharma) (M.S. Negi)
Court Master Court Master"
Following the same, this bench as well as another bench have passed the following judgments :-
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34910 of 2014
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar & 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, M.A.Qadeer
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.C. Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, who contends that the acquisition proceeding of the disputed land will be deemed to have lapsed on account of the grounds taken in the present petition.
Sri M.C. Chaturvedi on the other hand contends that the other grounds taken with regard to challenge raised to the acquisition is no longer available on account of delay and laches in view of various Division Bench judgments in respect of similar notifications which have already been upheld by the Apex Court.
He further submits that so far as the additional ground taken for lapse is concerned, this argument also cannot be accepted in view of the recent Division Bench pronouncement in the case of Chandra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (1) ADJ 163 (DB).
We have perused the judgment and orders in Writ Petition Nos. 46171/2013,46863/2013,50075/2013, 54139/2013, 54141/2013, 55560/2013, 68273/2013, 68274/2013, 68275/2013 and order of the Apex Court dated 6.12.2013 that has been produced by Sri Chaturvedi.
Having perused the same and having considered the aforesaid submissions, none of the grounds raised by the petitioners are tenable. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of laches as well as the other ground raised by Sri Qadeer, following the aforesaid decisions.
Order Date :- 9.7.2014
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46171 of 2013
Petitioner :- Ram Babu And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.C. Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Shiva Kirti Singh,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for Agra Development Authority - respondent no.2.
This writ petition has been preferred to challenge notifications dated 14.09.2010 and 24.05.2011 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'Act').
The only ground to explain the delay of more than two years in preferring this writ petition is a plea that petitioners were not aware about the disposal of their objections. That plea does not hold water because Section 6 notification is issued after the objections are considered under Section 5-A of the Act. The other plea on behalf of the petitioners that a writ petition challenging the notifications in question preferred in 2011 is still pending, in our view, does not amount to satisfactory explanation for delay because different writ petitions may be based upon different pleas peculiar to facts of each case.
Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that majority of the landholders have accepted the acquisition and have agreed to receive compensation as per Karar Niyamawali.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Order Date :- 3.9.2013"
The present petition is also barred by laches with no plausible explanation forthcoming from the petitioners.
Sri Chandra then invited the attention of the Court to the proceedings of the meeting held under the chairmanship of the Chief Minister dated 29.8.2012, Annexure 12 to the writ petition. We have carefully perused the same and the said proceedings are only to alter the manner of execution of the plan and has got nothing to do with the acquisition proceedings. The argument is misconceived.
Another argument was raised by Sri Chandra that the acquisition will be deemed to have been withdrawn. We are afraid that such an argument cannot be accepted as neither the 1894 Act nor the 2013 Act provide for any such deacquisition by administrative decisions taken by the Government and we do not find any decision taken under the Act so as to extend such benefit.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 11.8.2014
Anand Sri./-
