Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RAMCHARITARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

A stale and belated claim regarding land acquisition cannot be entertained, and the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner alleged that certain lands were taken over without proper acquisition, referencing an acquisition that occurred in 1976, but failed to specify the date of possession. The respondent argued that the claim was stale and should have been raised in the year of acquisition, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Syed Maqbool Ali v. State of U.P. (2011) 15 SCC 383. The court agreed that a belated claim could not be entertained. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether a claim concerning land acquisition made many years after the alleged taking over can be entertained by the court

Subjects

  • land acquisition
  • stale claim
  • limitation
  • writ petition
  • Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

                                             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                            WRIT - C No. - 36580 of 2025

                                    Ramcharitar
                                                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                       Versus

                                    State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                                             .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Anurag Shukla, Kripa Shankar Shukla
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)        : C.S.C.

                                    Court No. - 29
                                                     HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
                                                     HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

                                    1. From the record, we find that the acquisition had taken place in the year
                                    1976.

                                    2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that certain lands were
                                    taken over without any acquisition. No date of actual taking over of
                                    possession of those land has been mentioned anywhere in the writ
                                    petition.

                                    3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that if any decision is required to be
                                    taken, the same ought to have been taken in the initial year itself. In this
                                    regard, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed
                                    Maqbool Ali v. State of U.P. and Another, reported in (2011) 15 SCC
                                    383, and submitted that a very stale and belated claim cannot be
                                    entertained by the Court.

                                    4. We do find substance in the submission of the learned Standing
                                    Counsel.

                                    5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.



                                                               (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
                                    September 28, 2026
                                    PK




Digitally signed by :-
PRAVEEN KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.