Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18937-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25758 of 2016 Petitioner :- Ramdeen Bharti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Andors Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajai Kishore Singh,Rakesh Singh Parihar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Puneet Chandra,Yash Pal Singh Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard. 2. After hearing the parties and perusing the record what comes out is that the land in question was acquired by the opposite parties way back in 1985 and regarding it an award was rendered by the Land Acquisition Officer on 7th March, 1987 and the due amount of compensation paid to one Munni Devi, who was recorded in the revenue records in pursuance to an order of the Asstt. Consolidation Officer passed in the year 1975. Based on the aforesaid, compensation was released in favour of the said Munni Devi on 09.04.1987, as has been stated in paragraph- 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the official opp. party. 3. The petitioner, it appears, filed objection in consolidation proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, wherein an order was passed on 24.01.2012 in his favour. 4. According to the petitioner's counsel name of the petitioner was recorded in pursuance to the said order in respect of the land in question, albeit after filing of a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 4686 (MB) of 2005 (Annexure- 1), which was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. Thereafter the petition at hand was filed in 2016 challenging the acquisition proceedings. Challenge is on the ground that possession was never taken. 5. The payment of compensation regarding the land in question has already been made to Munni Devi. We do not find any valid ground for interfering with the acquisition, that too, after a lapse of so many years. 6. On being asked, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the grievance is that the compensation in respect of the land has not been provided to the petitioner, rather, it was paid to Munni Devi. Munni Devi has already died. Opposite party No. 6 is the son of late Munni Devi. This is not a matter to be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner may avail other remedies, if otherwise permissible in law, against the person who had received compensation in respect of the land in question or his or her successor in interest. Such questions cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after lapse of so many years. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (Om Praklash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 1.4.2025 A.Nigam Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench