HARI SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh has produced before us an order dated 19.2.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 10773 of 2014, which is based on identical facts. The said order is extracted below:

(2.) Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding the entertainability of the writ petition. He submits that the writ petition has been filed after more than 6 years from the date of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and it is highly bared by laches. He submits that even the Full Bench judgment in Gajraj & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, which decided the bunch of writ petitions was delivered on 21/10/2011, and more than 2 years have elapsed from the judgment of the Full Bench in Gajraj's case which decided the bunch of writ petitions including the writ petition relating to Villate Itehra. In the entire writ petition, the petitioner has not even in any paragraph has given any explanation for delay and laches in approaching the Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land use of the Village Itehra was changed in the year 2010.