The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles related to delay and laches in filing writ petitions, and the interpretation of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

ORDER :

RAJESH BINDAL, CJ.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated April 29, 2019 passed by respondent No.1, by which the application filed by the petitioner for release of his land, in exercise of power under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Act was rejected. Further prayer has been made in the alternative to provide benefits to the petitioner in terms of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1.

THE FACT

2. Briefly, the pleaded facts are that the petitioner claims that he was the owner of land measuring 0.9960 hectare, forming part of Khasra No. 649 situated in Village Gulistanpur, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The notification under Section 4 of the Act proposing to acquire the aforesaid land was issued on September 5, 2007. It was followed by a notification issued under Section 6 of the Act invoking powers under Section 17 of the Act, on February 27, 2008. Challenging the aforesaid acquisition, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15845 of 2008. The aforesaid writ petition along with a bunch of writ petitions led by Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20156 of 2009, titled as Smt. Rajni and others Vs. State of U.P. and others were decided by a common judgment by this Court, dated May 30, 2011. The acquisition was quashed with reference to the landowners, who had not accepted the compensation with liberty to the State to follow the procedure in terms of Section 5-A of the Act. As far as the landowners, who had accepted the compensation, liberty was granted to them to file representations to the State Government for release of their land under Section 48 of the Act. Such representations, if filed within one month, were to be decided expeditiously. It is claimed that the petitioner filed the representation dated June 24, 2011. As the same was not decided, the petitioner filed a fresh writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 21192 of 2016 which was disposed of vide order dated May 10, 2016 with a direction to respondents therein to decide the representation filed by the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted a reminder dated June 4, 2016 for decision of his earlier representation. Vide impugned order dated April 29, 2019, the claim of the petitioner for release of land in terms of Section 48 of the Act was rejected. Further reference was made to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj’s case (supra), as confirmed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, wherein the landowners were directed to be given certain benefits in addition to the compensation as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

SUBMISSIONS

3. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the land having not been utilised and there being violation of the procedural aspect with reference to the acquisition of land whereby the petitioner had not been given opportunity to file objections and the land having not been utilised, the same should have been released by the State in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Act.

4. It was further argued that, in the alternative, the petitioner being similarly situated as were the landowners in Gajraj’s case (supra), he should be given the benefits as were extended to the landowners in the aforesaid Full Bench judgment of this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that release of land or exercise of power under Section 48 of the Act is not a matter of right vested with the landowners. It is merely a power given to the State. In the case in hand, the claim of the petitioner was examined. He had never been aggrieved of the acquisition as he had received the entire compensation without any objection. It is even evident from the representation filed by the petitioner where he undertook to return the compensation received by him. The land having vested in the State free from all e