Sh. Jaikaran and 3 Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

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").

¶12

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

¶13

"(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.

¶14

(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."

¶15

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

¶16

WRIC No. 7209 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

WRIC No. 7209 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

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).

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

WRIC No. 7209 of 2026

¶27

4

¶28

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.

¶29

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶31

February 26, 2026

¶32

SP/

¶33

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

Sh. Jaikaran and 3 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Jaikaran and 3 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harsh Bhati and Another vs State of U..P and 2 Others

Smt. Seema Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sh. Jaikaran and 3 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Chhote Lal vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Indira Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shambhu Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others