words per minute
7
Himani1864556
00:00
Speed
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5104 of 2019
Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Singh And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
(Per : Dr. 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
2
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."
4. It is submitted that the present writ petition essentially seeks
similar reliefs as prayed for in the earlier writ petition which was
dismissed vide the aforesaid order and in view thereof the present
petition being a second writ petition for almost the same cause of action
cannot be entertained.
5. The principle underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure1
which is founded on public policy mandates that successive
writ petitions cannot be entertained for the same relief. The Supreme
Court in M/s Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate
Tribunal & Ors.2
held as follows:-