Timely challenges are essential in land acquisition disputes; relief cannot be granted due to inordinate delay as established by the court's reaffirmation of the principle of laches.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Yash Padia, learned counsel for the Kanpur Development Authority (in short "Authority").

2. The instant writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for following reliefs:-

"(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.12.2025 passed by respondent no.2/ District Magistrate, District Kanpur Nagar.

(2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Prescribed Authority to pass afresh order regarding the compensation of the petitioners of Arazi No.82 area 0.1180 hectare and Gata No.503 area 0.1540 hectare situated at Village Bairi, Akbarpur Kachhar, District Kanpur Nagar at the present circle rate.

(3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to make rehabilitation and resettlement award as per provisions of Act, 2013."

3. The factual matrix giving rise to the instant writ petition is that the proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "Act, 1894) in respect of area notified under Section 4 read with Section 17 (4) and Section 6 read with Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1894 was gazetted for 07 revenue villages of District Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. A notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued for planned development of New Kanpur City in the official gazette of the State of Uttar Pradesh on 9th August, 1996 in respect of a huge area of land of seven revenue villages. The notification was also published in different newspapers. The last such publication was made on 20.12.1996. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was published on 17.12.1997 in the official gazette. The provisions of Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act, 1894 were resorted to and as such enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 was dispensed with. Various writ petitions were preferred by the aggrieved persons questioning the validity of the acquisition proceeding. The Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.66471 of 2005 (Mahavir Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) was filed challenging the validity of the acquisition proceeding, which was allowed vide order dated 26.09.2006 with following observations:-

"......The result therefore is that the Statutory prescribed period for making the declaration under Section 6 of the Act having lapsed, all actions and consequences subsequent to the notification under Section 4 of the Act stand vitiated. The impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 03.10.2005 is quashed, so far as the land involved in these petitions are concerned. The writ petitions accordingly succeed and are allowed with no order as to costs."

4. The record reflects that the petitioners' father, who was recorded tenure holder had never challenged the acquisition proceeding during his life time, first time the petitioners had preferred Writ-C No.37666 of 2025 (Sarvesh Kumar & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) in the year 2025, which was disposed of on 3.11.2025 with following observations:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Abhinav Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3, and Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners are the recorded tenure holder of Gata No.82 area 0.1180 hectare, Gata no.503 area 0.1540 hectare situated in village Bairi Akbarpur Kachhar, District Kanpur Nagar. Even though, the land was acquired but till date the actual compen