Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119211-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5757 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramwati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard Shri Manoj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the public tubewell, which was established over petitioner's land bearing Gata No.76/2 area 0.063 hectare situated at Village Pagauna, Pargana and Tehsil Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar in the year 1985-86, the petitioner is to be paid adequate compensation. 3. Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel has raised an objection qua maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. He submits that the father of the petitioner namely Chhidda Singh had voluntarily given a piece of land for establishment of the tubewell for public purpose in the year 1985-86. Even the petitioner's father had died on 06.10.2010 and in his life time, he had never agitated the matter. The petitioner was fully aware of the construction work at the relevant time but she did not raise any objection or approach any legal forum within a reasonable period. He submits that no compensation or alternate land is liable to be granted at this belated stage, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Maqbool Hussain vs. State of U.P. and Others, [2011] (4) SCR 328, wherein it was held that in cases, where land is utilized for public purposes and the landholder approaches the court after an inordinate delay, the claim for compensation may be declined, especially when the construction is complete and public interest has intervened. 4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents, and upon perusal of the record, we are of the considered view that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It is evident that the construction of the public tubewell was made in the year 1985-86 under a Government scheme aimed at rural development, and the petitioner did not take timely steps to raise her objections. 5. In the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 RKP Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad