##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved on 10.08.2026 Delivered on 27.10.2026 Sumit Makhija and another …..Petitioner(s)

Versus State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. and others …..Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhinav Krishna, Amit Saxena, Ashok K Pandey, Vineet Sankalp Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ajit Kr Singh, C.S.C., M.C.

Tripathi, Shashi Prakash Rai HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

(Delivered by Hon’ble Saral Srivastava,J.)

1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri S.N. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri S.P. Rai, learned counsel for Kanpur Development Authority.

2. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have prayed for quashing the order dated 16.05.2008 passed by respondent no.1- Principal Secretary, Revenue Department by which he has recalled the Notification dated 03.05.2006 by which land comprised in Gata Nos.210, 221, 222 & 223, total area 6-16-0 Bighas was withdrawn from the acquisition.

3. The facts, in brief, are that petitioners claim that they are co- owners of Araji Nos.210, 221, 222 & 223 measuring area 6-16-0 Bighas land situated in Village Shahpur (Mohsinpur), District Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘land in question’).

4. According to the petitioners, the respondent no.1 in the year 1959 had issued a Notification under Section 4 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1894’) for acquiring the land in question. The Notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was also issued in respect to the aforesaid land. The award was made in the year

1963. The petitioners state that they did not accept the award.

5. Further case of the petitioners is that the award was amended and respondent no.3 did not deposit the amount of amended award. It is further stated that possession of aforesaid land was not taken either from petitioners or from their ancestors, and the land in question remained in continuous possession of petitioners' family.

6. The petitioner no.1-Sumit Makhija and father of petitioner no.2- Late Ram Lal Makhija made a representation against the acquisition primarily on the ground that Scheme-40 for which the land was acquired was never implemented by respondent no.3 and possession had not been taken from the land owners for years together, and also on the ground that compensation was not paid by the respondent no.3.

7. Further it is the case of the petitioners that under the proviso to Section 17(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1973’), if the land has not been utilised within the period of five years from the date of acquisition for the purpose for which it was acquired, the aggrieved person may file an application to the State Government for restoration of that land. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted a representation for releasing their land under Section 48 of the Act, 1894 read with Section 17 of the Act, 1973.

8. On the representation of the petitioners, the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar submitted a report to the Director, Land Acquisition Directorate, Revenue Department, State of U.P. Lucknow on 27.01.2005. It appears that acting upon the report of the District Magistrate dated 27.01.2005, the aforesaid land was exempted by Notification dated

03.05.2006.

9. It transpires from the record that State Government issued a Government Order dated 15.09.2006 which provided that necessary powers under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1894 for releasing the acquired land would be exercised by the department for which acquisition had been made. The respondent no.1 in pursuance to the Government Order dated 15.09.2006 recalled the Notification dated 03.05.2006 by order dated 16.05.2008.

10. The petitioners being aggrieved by the Order dated 16.05.