Court No. - 2 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 81 of 2024 Applicant :- Krishna Chandra Prasad Sinha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Urban Development And Avas U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Neetu Shukla Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. C.M.Application No.1 of 2024 This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition supported with an affidavit. Considering the explanation offered by the applicant for the delay and laches in filing the application, the same is accepted. The application is allowed. In re; Review Application This is an application seeking review of the order dated 14.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.26473(M/B) of 2017, by which the application of the petitioner for amendment of the writ petition was rejected. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed before us copy of the writ petition and on reading of the relief clause, we find that release of the land had been sought. This relief is intact for consideration as the petition is still pending.The application for amendment of the petition was rejected on 14.05.2019. The applicant's counsel contends that the award has not been rendered in respect of trees, constructions, wells etc., which includes grave yard,therefore in view of Section 24(2) of Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(hereinafter referred to as Act of 2013), the acquisition had lapsed, as such the amendment should have been allowed and the order dated 14.05.2019 is erroneous. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that as per the Possession Letter, the possession is of the land alone and not of the trees, house existing thereon and the grave yard, as is evident from the order. The alternate submission is that supplementary award should be rendered in respect of only tree, construction etc. The plea that in the award dated 23.06.1981 itself it was mentioned that separate award shall be made in respect of trees, construction, wells etc. has been considered in the order dated 14.0.2019,by which the amendment application of the petitioner seeking to amend the writ petition and a prayer for treating the acquisition proceedings as having lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, was rejected, therefore this plea cannot be reconsidered in the review application. On being asked, learned counsel for the applicant produced before us the application for amendment which was rejected by the order, review of which has been sought, we do not find additional prayer proposed in the amendment application to the effect that acquisition be treated to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 nor that any supplementary award be pronounced in respect of the trees, wells, constructions etc.which were existing on the said land, therefore this plea cannot be considered in these review proceedings. On being further asked, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that all the constructions etc. have been demolished and the trees cut. We say no more except that in this application for review we do not find any valid ground for reviewing the order dated 14.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.26473(M/B) of 2017. However, if the petitioner wants declaration of supplementary award in respect of trees, constructions, wells etc, if the award thereof has not been pronounced till date, then, if there is no other legal impediment, the petitioner can approach the concerned or file a fresh petition if he so desires or amend the existing writ petition, if it is otherwise permissible. With the aforesaid observations, the review petition is dismissed. ..................................................... (Rajnish Kumar,J.) ( Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Akanksha/- Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench