Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5988-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 757 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Nirmala Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Shanker Pandey,Abhishek Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikas Singh Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner's land was acquired for the Unnao- Shuklaganj Development Authority way-back in 2006/2007 and the award was rendered on 29.05.2010, however, in the interregnum certain persons, whose land had been acquired, had filed writ petition bearing Land Acquisition No. 61 of 2008 which was allowed vide judgment dated 08.04.2013. Similar orders were passed in other cases also. The said matter went up to Hon'ble the Supreme Court and so far as the Unnao-Shuklaganj Development Authority is concerned it was the appellant before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6204-6212 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 28473- 28481/2013 as informed by the counsel for petitioner and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the said authority. The judgment of this Court was affirmed on 10.07.2018 with the observations - "We see no reason to disturb the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court except to observe that the declaration of lapsing will only be confined to the present respondents before this Court and not to persons who did not go to the court at all. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of." 3. On a reading of the said extract of the judgment it is apparent that the judgment became final so far as the acquisition of the land of the petitioners before the High Court and before Hon'ble the Supreme Court were concerned and the benefit of the said judgment was confined to them with the specific observation that benefit of it would not be extended to the persons who did not go to court at all. 4. Now, the petitioner has filed this petition for the first time in 2025 seeking a determination of compensation in respect of the land in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on the ground that the earlier notifications dated 04.07.2006/14.12.2007 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been quashed by the High Court which was affirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and also that no development work should be started on the land in question. 5. It is not a case where any writ or order has been sought declaring the said acquisition as having lapsed so that the benefit of Section 24(2) of the said Act, 2013 may be given to the petitioner. The earlier acquisition proceedings have not been challenged on any other ground also. 6. Considering the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, as quoted hereinabove, we are of the opinion that this writ petition is absolutely misconceived, as, the earlier judgment of the High Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court were confined to the petitioners who had filed the writ petition. The petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the said judgment nor is there any factual or legal basis for claiming relief prayed for. 7. This writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. It is dismissed. [Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Santosh/- Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench