Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Rishi Kumar Jain and Another - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ (C) No. 21150 of 2014
Decided On : 18-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ram Prakash Srivastava
For the Respondent: Ravi Anand Agarwal

Land acquisition proceedings confirmed despite long history of litigation; procedural rules under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 not applicable to past acquisitions under 1965 Act.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 - Sections 28 and 32 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 17 - Acquisition proceedings historical context and procedural legality challenged - Petitioners argued that the acquisition had lapsed due to various technicalities and their claim of non-receipt of compensation was central to the case. The court considered established precedents that emphasized the finality of previous judgments regarding the same land and determined that subsequent challenges were impermissible as they constituted frivolous litigation. The petitioners were found responsible for unnecessary delays regarding their claims. (Paras 27, 32, 46)

Findings of Court:
The acquisition proceedings were upheld despite contestation and the lengthy history of legal challenges laid bare the absence of merit in the petitioners' claims. The land had legally vested in the State.

Issues: Key issues centered on whether the provisions of the Act, 2013 applied to acquisitions under the 1965 Act and determining if the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 due to alleged inaction in compensation or possession.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld that procedural delays caused by the petitioners precluded interference in confirmed acquisition proceedings and clarified that the provisions of the Act, 2013 did not retroactively apply to past acquisitions under the 1965 Act.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. relief sought by petitioners in writ petition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. arguments by the parishad opposing the writ. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14)
3. court’s analysis on the series of litigations and their implications. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 34)
4. issues regarding applicability of section 24(2) of the act. (Para 27 , 28 , 30)
5. conclusion affirming dismissal of writ petition. (Para 46 , 48 , 50)

JUDGMENT :

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Pramod Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ram Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Suresh Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Ravi Anand Agarwal, learned counsel for U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. [Parishad]

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

“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6.2.2012 by the respondent no.1 (Annexure-15);

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire acquisition proceeding initiated by Notification dated 4.4.1970 and 28.6.1980 issued under Section 28 and 32 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam insofar as it relates to the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra Plot No.898, 899, 901, 902, 905, 906 and 909 situated at Kakretha, Tehsil and District Agra, within the Section No.10 of the Yojana;

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction declaring the acquisition proceedings against the petitioners’ land as described above in prayer (ii) deemed to have lapsed;

(iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give vacant and peaceful possession of the land described above to the petitioners;

(v) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to settle/ adjust the land of the petitioners in their favour as per Government Order dated 11.3.2003;

(vi) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay compensation of the land acquired by virtue of the aforesaid notification at the current market value and in accordance with the Act 30 of 2013.….”

A. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

3. It is contended that the petitioners’ father Late Raj Narain Jain was the bhumidhar in possession of the lands comprised in Khasra Plot No. 898, 899, 901, 902, 905, 906 and 909 situated at Kakretha, Tehsil and Distt. Agra. After his death, the petitioners have inherited the same as legal heirs of their deceased father.

4. The Parishad proposed to acquire the aforesaid land along with other lands for its “Sikandra Grah Sthan and Sarak Yojana at Agra” [Scheme in question] and published a notification under Section 28 dated 04.04.1970 and declaration under Section 32 dated 28.06.1080 of the UTTAR PRADESH AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD ADHINIYAM , 1965. [Adhiniyam, 1965] As there was an urgency, a notification dated 23.01.1981 was issued under Section 17 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 [Act, 1894] notifying the lands of the petitioners. The petitioners’ land falls within Sector 10 of the Scheme in question and they submitted their objection against the aforesaid notification on 04.04.1970.

5. The petitioners’ father challenged the said notifications published under Section 28 and 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1965 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by means of Writ Petition No.2136-2137 of 1982, which was dismissed on 07.04.1993 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the validity of the aforesaid two notifications.

6. At the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, Shri Raj Narain Jain filed O.S. No.892 of 1993 for permanent injunction against Parishad seeking an order restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession. In the said suit, initially temporary injunction was accorded on 23.03.1994. However, eventually the said injunctio