- (1.) Heard Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.C. Dwivedi for the respondents. Sri Chandra submits that a similar writ petition has been entertained being Writ Petition No. 28131 of 2014 in relation to the same notification arising out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(2.) We have perused the said order and it proceeds on the argument that the issue that the land was notified for one purpose and is being utilized for another has not been considered in the judgment of the Apex Court dated 6.12.2013.
(3.) We are unable to agree with this argument for the simple reason that the Apex Court with regard to the same notification has held as follows: ITEM No. 27 COURT No. 5 SECTION XI SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 34522/2013 (From the judgment and order dated 04/09/2013 in WP No. 46761/2013 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD) RAJENDRA SINGH KARDAM AND OTHERS.... Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P AND OTHERS....Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and prayer for interim relief) WITH SLP(C) No. 34531 of 2013 (With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and prayer for interim relief and office report) Date: 06/12/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM: Before : Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ V.N. RAGHUPATHY.... Petitioner (s) SUDHIR KULSHRESHTHA.... Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER It is a well-settled principle that the land acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged at a belated stage. We do not find any merit in these petitions. The special leave petitions are therefore dismissed.;