Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Raghvendra Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition the principal relief sought is for issuance of a direction to respondent nos.2 and 3 to consider the claim of the petitioners for providing compensation in lieu of acquisition of land plot nos.6, 43, 48 and 193 total area 68 decimal (0.297 hectares) situated in Village Pratap Patti, Pargana Athgawan, Tehsil Pindra, District Varanasi in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 along with the interest and other consequential benefits.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel has raised an objection that the petitioners had on an earlier occasion approached this Court by filing a writ petition, Writ-C No.26865 of 2018 (Mandhata Singh & 5 Ors. Vs. State of UP & 2 Ors.) which was dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2018, in the following terms:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing counsel has appeared for the respondents. The petitioners by means of this writ petition want a direction for payment of compensation of their land plot nos. 6, 43, 48 and 193 situate in village Pratap Patti Pargana Athgawan, Tehsil Pindra and District Varanasi under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The averments as made in the writ petition disclose that according to the petitioners, the aforesaid land was never acquired but was unauthorizedly occupied by the respondents long back. The petitioners are coming up for the first time with the above claim after such a long distance of time. In view of the above, we do not find any justification for reviving such a stale matter which is practicably dead after such a long time in the year 2018. In Syed Maqbool Ali Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2011 15 SCC 383 it has been observed by the Supreme Court that the High Court should be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. The relevant observation made by the Supreme Court is reproduced herein below:- "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 landholders 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." We do not find any explanation in the pleadings for preferring the claim after such a long gap of time. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we have no option but to refuse the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to press their remedies elsewhere as may be considered proper.";