Allahabad High Court
VIKRAM SINGH AND 9 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The rejection order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed, directing fresh consideration of the Section 28‑A application.
Summary
The petitioners, Vikram Singh and nine others, challenged a 21‑April‑2022 order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer that rejected their application under Section 28‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that it was filed 14 days after the award was passed. They relied on a prior coordinate‑bench decision (Ram Prakash v. State of U.P.) where a similar technical rejection for a nine‑day delay was set aside. The court noted that the petitioners were unaware of the award dated 04‑April‑2012 and held that the delay could be condoned. Consequently, the rejection order was set aside, the writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether a Special Land Acquisition Officer can reject a Section 28‑A application solely on the basis of a technical delay beyond the prescribed period.
- Whether such delay can be condoned in view of the petitioners' lack of knowledge of the award.
- Whether the precedent set in Ram Prakash v. State of U.P. is applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 28-A
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Section 28‑A
- Technical delay
- Condonation of delay
- Special Land Acquisition Officer
- Writ petition
- Precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 38391 of 2026
Vikram Singh And 9 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dushyant Singh, Mahesh Chand
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anuj Pratap Singh, C.S.C., Vibhu Rai
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri M.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, whereby the application filed under
Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the "Act,
1894") has been rejected on a highly technical ground.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance
upon the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Writ-C No. 23460 of 2022 (Ram Prakash vs. State of U.P. and 3
others), wherein the Special Land Acquisition Officer had rejected an
application under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 on the highly technical
ground that the same had been preferred beyond the prescribed period by
9 days. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Coordinate
Bench allowed the writ petition and relegated the matter to the competent
authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
4. It is contended that though the land acquisition reference was decided
by the competent Court on 04.04.2012 and the compensation in respect of
the land in question was finalized, the petitioners moved an application
under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 on 17.07.2012. Learned counsel for
the petitioners, in this backdrop, submits that in the instant case, the
application under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 was preferred with a
delay of 14 days. It is thus contended that the issue involved in the present
WRIC No. 38391 of 2026
2
case is squarely covered by the aforesaid order and, therefore, similar
indulgence may be extended in favour of the petitioners.
5. Be that as it may, a perusal of the record indicates that the petitioners
were not aware of the award passed by the Reference Court on
04.04.2012.
6. After getting the award, if the petitioners moved an application by
delay of 14 days, it should have been condoned by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. The rejection order, being highly technical is,
therefore, set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
7. The matter is relegated back to the Competent Authority for fresh
decision in accordance with law.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 23, 2026
Irshad
Digitally signed by :-
IRSHAD AHMAD SIDDIQUI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…