- (1.) HEARD Sri K.N. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh for the respondent.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notification dated 16.04.2008 issued Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and notification dated 16.06.2008 issued Under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act with regard to the plost mentioned in the writ petition. Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent raises a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that the writ petition has been filed after more than two years after issuance of the notifications and there being no plausible explanation in the writ petition, the writ petition cannot be entertained. He further submits that the same notification was already subjected to challenge in this Court by means of WP No. 29575/2008 (Satish Chandra v. State of U.P. and Ors.) in which the notifications were upheld.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the several judgements of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Bali Sharma v. State of U.P. and Ors. : 2005 (3) AWC 2726; Municipal Corporation of Greater bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. : 1996 (11) SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Anr. v. Shah Hyder Beig and Ors., 2002 (2) SCC 48; Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh and Ors. : 2003 (1) SCC 335; Haryana State Handloom and Handicrafts Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Jain School Society : 2003 (12) SCC 538; Sawaran Lata and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. : 2010 (4) SCC 532, for the proposition that the writ petition in the land acquisition matter cannot be entertained after considerable delay.;