HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 34955 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri K.R. Singh, learned counsel for Gorakhpur Development Authority (in short "Authority"). 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for a direction to respondents to release/ denotify the residential house of the petitioner from acquisition proceeding and for a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated 29.03.2025 within stipulated period. 3. It is contended that the petitioner still holds the possession over the disputed property and using it for dwelling purpose. The petitioner is having five daughters and belongs to economically weaker section of the society. Without rehabilitation, the petitioner may not be uprooted from her holding. 4. The relief is being resisted by learned Standing Counsel on the ground that the petitioner is subsequent purchaser and a writ petition claiming said relief on behalf of subsequent purchaser is not maintainable. The relief, as has been prayed for, is misconceived as the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") was issued on 9.1.2004 and admittedly the petitioner purchased the property on 29.3.2004. Nothing is brought on record to substantiate whether the erstwhile owner had received the compensation or not as immediately after notification, the erstwhile owner has created third party interest in favour of the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pawan Kumar Mishra, Pranav Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., K.R. Singh Smt. Champa Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Such factual aspect can only be examined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO). So far as challenge to the acquisition is concerned, the same also cannot be accepted at this belated stage. 5. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 9.1.2004. The disputed land was also part of said notification. Admittedly, through sale deed dated 29.3.2004 the petitioner had purchased the plot in question, raised certain boundary wall and constructed her residential house. It is also claimed that the petitioner had also deposited certain amount towards sanction of map in the year 2005 itself to the Authority. However, under the present facts and circumstances, the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to weaker section of the society and without her rehabilitation she may not be uprooted is misconceived. We find that the challenge to the acquisition cannot be accepted at this belated stage. However, in case the award was made and compensation qua disputed land had already been deposited by the Authority to SLAO and the same has not been disbursed to the erstwhile owner, who was recorded at the time of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, definitely the said aspect can very well be examined and needful may be done by the SLAO in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. October 7, 2025 SP/ WRIC No. 34955 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad