Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114374-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16016 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Bathla And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava,Namit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Archit Mandhyan,C.S.C.,Nipun Singh,Vibhuti Narain Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondent; Shri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (in short "Parishad") and Shri Vibhuti Narain, learned counsel for respondent no.4- Krishi Mandi Samiti, Saharanpur. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the notification dated 17.07.1997 and 11.11.2019 so far as it relates to the plots of the petitioner qua Khasra Nos.113 and 116 area 0.162 hects, which has been given to Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and for a direction to respondents to either restore the plot of the petitioner or to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short "Act, 2013"). 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection qua the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the relief, as has been prayed for, is not maintainable in view of law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Ravinder Kumar Jain & Ors. reported in 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 2518. 4. Heard rival submissions, perused the record and respectfully considered the judgment cited at Bar. 5. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the judgment in Government of NCT of Delhi (Supra) is reproduced as under:- "......10. In the case in hand it is the admitted position on record that notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act was issued on 25.11.1980 and the sale deed in favour of the respondent no. 1 was registered on 18.6.2003. Rather it is evident from the affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector in the High Court that the respondent no.1 purchased the land from Behl Brothers vide registered sale deed dated 18.06.2003, who had purchased the same from M/s. Ansal Housing and Estates (P) Ltd. vide sale deed dated 09.06.1981, which itself was after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 25.11.1980. Hence, the respondent will not have right to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court to claim that the acquisition in question had lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 in the High Court is dismissed." 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the judgment quoted above, we find that no interference is required in the instant matter. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 SP/ Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad