SH. JAIKARAN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                 WRIT - C No. - 7209 of 2026

Sh. Jaikaran And 3 Others
                                                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                                              Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
                                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                     :   Rakesh Chandra
Counsel for Respondent(s)                     :   C.S.C., Kaushalendra Nath Singh

Court No. - 21
              HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
              HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri
Devesh Vikram, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents
and Shri Sarthak Sinha holding brief of Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh,
learned counsel for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in short
"Authority").

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-

     "(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and directing the Special

     Land Acquisition Officer, Village Chakapur, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam

     Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and District Magistrate Gautam Budh Nagar (respondent no.2

     & 3) to decide the representation dated 04.02.2026 within a specified period as may be

     prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.


     (B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to

     grant compensation to the petitioners by treating Rs.297/- per square yard as the base rate

     and also applying Law Full escalation according to the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by

     this Hon'ble Court to till date."


3. At the outset, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has raised objection
qua the maintainability of the instant writ petition and submitted that in the
instant matter, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (in short "Act, 1894") was issued on 23.7.1991 for acquisition of the
land situated in Village Yaqubpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad for the
Authority followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894. The
                                                          WRIC No. 7209 of 2026
                                2


possession was taken on 30.03.1992 and the Special Land Acquisition
Officer (SLAO) by an award dated 13.11.1995 in respect of the entire
acquired land offered compensation at the rate of Rs.63.26 per sq. yard. On
reference, the XIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad vide judgment and
order dated 26th May, 1999 enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs.105.71
per sq. yard. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of the Court of
Reference, First Appeal no.6 of 2013 (Deep Chand & Ors. v. State of U.P. &
Anr.) was preferred. Relying on various judgments including the judgment
dated 13.3.2014 in First Appeal Defective No.773 of 2000 (Mahaveer v. The
Chairman, Industrial Development Authorities & Ors.), the aforesaid First
Appeal was allowed by learned Single Judge on 01.09.2015 and the
appellants were held entitled for payment of compensation @ Rs.297/- per
sq. yard along with 30% solatium, interest and other statutory benefits as
provided under the Act, 1894.

4. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel submits that in the instant
proceeding the petitioners claim that relying on the judgment in aforesaid
First Appeal, they had moved an application on 28.10.2020 under Section
28A of the Act, 1894 for re-determination of amount of compensation.
However, on the said application there is no endorsement. Later on the
instant writ petition is preferred on 12.02.2026 with inordinate delay. He
submits that the instant proceeding is devoid of merit and no such mandamus
can be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the application under
Section 28A and the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be
dismissed.

5. Similar objection has also been raised by learned counsel for the
Authority. He submits that in view of the provisions contained under Section
28 A (1) of the Act, 1894, a written application to the Collector is to be
moved within three months from the date of award of the Court require that
the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the
basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. He submits that
in the instant proceeding learned Single Judge has decided the aforesaid First
Appeal vide judgment and order dated 1.9.2015. Admittedly no such
application under Section 28A of the Act, 1894 had been preferred by the
petitioners well within time. Later on, the purported application, which is not
even marked and having no endorsement was time barred and cannot be
                                                          WRIC No. 7209 of 2026
                                3


treated as application under Section 28 A of the Act, 1894 filed well within
time. He submits that it is well settled that limitation, which is provided
under the Act, 1894, cannot be extended by the Court. Reliance in this
regard has been placed on the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamilnadu & Ors., 2002 AIR
SCW 1156. He further submits that even thereafter no plausible explanation
has been given in the instant writ petition to meet out the inordinate delay
and laches in filing in the instant petition. Under the present facts and
circumstances, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches. (Ref.Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Rajasthan, (2008) 4 SCC 695 and Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P., 2025
(9) ADJ 443 (Para 8.10 & 8.11).

6. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that
admittedly the award qua acquired land was made way back on
13.11.1995. The reference was answered by XIth Additional District
Judge, Ghaziabad on 26.5.1999 enhancing the rate of compensation to
Rs.105.71 per sq. yard. Against the same, First Appeal No.6 of 2013 was
preferred before learned Single Judge, which was allowed on 01.09.2015
entitling the appellants for payment of compensation @ Rs.297/- per sq.
yard alongwith 30% solatium, interest and other statutory benefits as
provided under the Act, 1894. In case the date of award of Court is treated
as 1.9.2015, the application had to be moved within three months from
the date of award of the Court require that the amount of compensation
payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of
compensation awarded by the Court. It is admitted position that the
petitioner had utterly failed to avail the opportunity, which was available
to the petitioners well within limitation after judgment and order passed
by the first appellate court on 01.09.2015. Admittedly, the application was
filed in the year 2020 and later on the writ petition was also preferred with
inordinate delay in the year 2026.

7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is admitted position that the
application under Section 28A of the Act, 1894 had not been preferred
well within limitation and even the writ petition is also preferred with
inordinate delay and as such we are not inclined to interfere in the matter
at this belated stage. However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that
                                                                                           WRIC No. 7209 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    in case the petitioners claim to be rightful owner of the property and
                                    desire to claim 20% compensation, which was deposited with SLAO and
                                    has not been released, they can pursue that claim in accordance with law.

                                    8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.



                                                    (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
                                    February 26, 2026
                                    SP/




Digitally signed by :-
SURYA PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad