VINAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(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 vs. 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.