HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35075 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ambarish Shukla, learned A.C.S.C. for the State-respondents and Sri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for G.D.A. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for a direction commanding the Prescribed Authority Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Tribunal, Gautam Budh Nagar to decide Reference No. 3852/2023 dated 03.10.2023 as referred by respondent no. 3 through letter dated 03.10.2024 without any further delay and alternatively it has also been prayed that the respondent no. 3 may decide the representation dated 22.07.2025. 3. The relief is opposed by the learned A.C.S.C. on premises that acquisition proceedings were finalised way back in the year 1964. A notification was issued on 27.10.1964 and the award was made and compensation amount was released on 31.07.1967 in favour of Abhay Ram and Ram Nivas sons of Gokul. 4. The claim has been set up by the petitioner that the land in dispute was purchased by Husan Singh ancestor of the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 16.11.1953 from one Kirpal Singh and the name of the petitioner was duly mutated in the revenue record. The petitioner was claiming compensation for the said land and, accordingly, Writ-C No. 1510 of 2023 (Malkhan Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others) was Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bajrang Bahadur Singh, Satya Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Tejasvi Misra Malkhan Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) preferred for a direction commanding the respondent authorities to calculate and award compensation to the petitioners in lieu of acquisition of Khasra No. 76, measuring area 1-11-0, in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. 5. The Division Bench vide order dated 25.08.2023 has taken into account the notification so issued on 27.10.1964 and the award so made in respect of the said land and the compensation was released in favour of Abhay Ram and Ram Nivas sons of Gokul on 31.07.1967. The Court has observed that "since the amount was released long back in the year 1976, at this distance in time, we are not inclined to examine the issue, particularly when the aforesaid persons are not party in the instant petition. Moreover, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where there is dispute relating to entitlement or appointment, remedies are provided which the petitioners have not availed". However, it was open to the petitioner to avail such other remedy as may be advised and, accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of. 6. In light of the aforesaid observation, the petitioner has tried to revive his old and dead claim and approached the S.L.A.O. Irrigation, Ghaziabad, who has passed an order on 21.10.2024, even after taking note of the fact that the compensation was disbursed way back on 31.07.1967, that there is a dispute. The said observation is made ex parte in light of the observations made by the Division Bench and, accordingly, the matter was referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as Amended 1984) to the Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Tribunal, Gautam Budh Nagar-respondent no. 2. 7. The instant writ petition is preferred with innocuous prayer for a direction commanding the respondent no. 2 to decide the said Reference. 8. We are surprised that the S.L.A.O. while passing the order dated 03.10.2024/21.10.2024 has not taken into consideration the delay and laches as provided under the Act, 1894. Even the said Reference could not be made as the record clearly reflects that in earlier round of litigation there was nothing on record before the Court that the matter for WRIC No. 35075 of 2025 2 disbursement of compensation to Abhay Ram and Ram Nivas sons of Gokul way back on 31.07.1987 was even agitated. Only in light of the observations made by the Division Bench, an old and dead claim has been revived and the matter has been referred to respondent no. 2 i.e. the Prescribed Authority Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Tribunal to decide the proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. 9. We are, prima facie, of the opinion that such Reference could not be made only on account of some observation made by the Division Bench, whereas the Division Bench itself has declined to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the amount was released long back in the year 1967. 10. Even in the instant proceedings the petitioner has not made a party to Abhay Ram and Ram Nivas sons of Gokul, who had received compensation on 31.07.1967, even though in the previous round of litigation the Court had observed that necessary parties were not impleaded in the said proceedings. 11. On account of this factual situation, we find that the order dated 03.10.2024/21.10.2024 is per se unsustainable and a writ petition is placed before us to issue a direction to Prescribed Authority, i.e. respondent no. 2, to decide the per se unsustainable claim of the petitioner. The old and dead claim cannot be revived only on account of certain information received in the Right to Information Act in the year 2023, on the basis of which the petitioner started to agitate for referring the matter to the Prescribed Authority under the Land Acquisition Act. The relief is totally misconceived. We decline to exercise out discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant any relief in light of the above facts and circumstances. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. October 7, 2025 Pkb/ WRIC No. 35075 of 2025 3 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad