- (1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 1 November 2017 passed by the Executive Engineer, Prantiya Khand, Public Works Department, Gyanpur Bhadohi by means of which the petitioner has been informed that in respect of Araji No.94 having an area 0.366 hectares, the claim for payment of compensation is not possible as the road from Gyanpur to Durgaganj had been constructed more than 40-50 years back.
(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land was acquired during the life time of the father of the petitioner and he is entitled to compensation for the land.
(3.) There is nothing on the record to indicate that the father of the petitioner had ever made a claim for payment of compensation. In fact, there is every reason to believe that the father of the petitioner may have donated the land for construction of the road as that would enure to his benefit also. It would, therefore, not be appropriate to entertain a claim made after 50 years for payment of compensation at the instance of heir. This is also what has been observed by the Supreme Court in Syed Maqbool Ali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2011 15 SCC 383 wherein the Supreme Court held that in cases where land has been acquired for public purpose long time back, such petitions should not be entertained by Courts and should be dismissed and the relevant observations are as follows :- "The High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. It is not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community - as for example, construction of an access road to the village or their property, or construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. When they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase, either on account of passage of time or on account of developments or improvements carried out by the State, the land holders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent. When such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily. Therefore, belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may.";