Bhupat vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 1952 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25597 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Bhupat
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Nath Agrawal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

Heard Sri Arvind Nath Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner by means of this writ petition wants a direction for payment of compensation of his land Plot No. 64 area 0.057 hectare situate in village Kalauthara, Pargana & Tehsil Talbehat, District Lalitpur under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The averments as made in the writ petition disclose that according to the petitioner, the aforesaid land was never acquired but was unauthorizedly occupied by the respondents in the year 1987.

The petitioner is coming up for the first time with the above claim after more than 30 years.

In view of the above, we do not find any justification for reviving such a stale matter which is practicably dead after such a long time in the year 2018.

In Syed Maqbool Ali Vs. State of U.P. and another (2011) 15 SCC 383 it has been observed by the Supreme Court that the High Court should be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation.

The relevant observation made by the Supreme Court is reproduced herein below:-

"The High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. It is not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community as for example, construction of an access road to the village or their property, or construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. When they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase, either on account of passage of time or on account of developments or improvements carried out by the State, the landholders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent. When such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily. Therefore, belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed."

We do not find any explanation in the pleadings for preferring the claim after such a long gap of time.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we have no option but to refuse the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in the matter.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to press his remedies elsewhere as may be considered proper.

Order Date :- 13.8.2018

Masarrat