JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Further, direction has been sought for a decision on the representation dated December 31, 2020 filed by the petitioners seeking the aforesaid claim. Reference has been made to two sale-deeds (Annexures-2 and 3) in which the landowners therein were granted compensation four times to the circle rate.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of the Government Order dated March 19, 2015, the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation on the principles as laid down in the Act and the same have even been followed by the State in the cases of other landowners whose sale-deeds were registered on July 7, 2017 (Annexure-3) and December 2, 2020 (Annexure-2). He did not dispute the fact that the sale-deeds in the case of the petitioners were registered way back in the year 2013 on different dates, much prior to the issuance of the Government Order dated March 19, 2015. He also referred to an order passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 19518 of 2017, titled as Basudeo and others v. State of U.P. and others in which a direction was issued to the Committee constituted in terms of Clause 3(1) of the Government Order dated March 19, 2015 for reassessment of the compensation. The argument is that the land of the petitioners having been taken for construction of road on Indo-Nepal Border, they should not be discriminated for payment of compensation.

3. After hearing learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same deserves to be dismissed firstly on the ground of delay and laches. The sale-deeds were got registered by the petitioners way back in the year 2013 on different dates after receiving the amount of consideration mentioned therein. No issue was raised by them till such time representation dated December 31, 2020 was filed seeking higher compensation referring to the provisions of the Act and also the Government Order dated March 19, 2015. The writ petition was filed in this Court about eight years after the sale-deeds were registered. Any subsequent event will not re-open the issue, which already stood settled. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

4. Different facets of issue regarding delay and laches in filing the petition had been subject-matter of consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court on number of occasions, wherein it has been consistently opined that the party can be denied relief, if he sleeps over the matter.

5. In State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, (2013)12 SCC 179, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and referring to earlier judgments on the issue, opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived even if such a representation has either been decided by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the Court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed. Delay and laches on the part of a Government servant may even deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in a situation of that nature, will not be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. Even equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not on expiry of reasonable time. Even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time. Such an order p