HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 21400 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel for the UPSIDC-respondent no. 2 and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking a direction commanding the respondents to accord compensation to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 15/- per square meter with all statutory benefits on the basis of Judgement and order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal/SLP (C) Nos. 28287-28288 of 2019 (Anek Singh Etc. vs. State of U.P. and Another). 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order dated 24.4.2025 passed in Writ C No. 9703 of 2025 (Digambar Singh And Others vs. State of U.P. And Others) wherein the Division Bench has proceeded to observed as under:- "1. The prayer made in the instant petition is for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding respondent no. 3 to provide compensation to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 15/- per square meter in place of Rs. 1.60/- per square meter in terms of the judgement of the Supreme Court dated 28.11.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No(s) 28287-28288 of 2019 (Anek Singh Etc. vs. State of U.P. and another). 2. It appears that the land of the petitioners along with other lands was acquired Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akash Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ambrish Shukla, Anuj Pratap Singh, C.S.C. Gopi Chand And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An award was declared on 13.8.1980. Anek Singh and some other tenure holders preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act. It was rejected by the reference court. Thereafter, the appeal preferred by them before this Court was also dismissed. Anek Singh and others went up in appeal before the Supreme Court and the appeal has been decided in their favour and the compensation amount has been enhanced to Rs. 15/- per square meter. 3. The petitioners made a complaint on IGRS portal wherein they claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 15/- per square meter on ground of parity with Anek Singh and others in relation to whom the Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 15/- per square meter. The complaint has been rejected by Special Land Acquisition Officer observing that the order of the Supreme Court was confined to Anek Singh and others who had sought the reference. The said benefit cannot be given to other tenure holders. 4. Under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, it is open to a person interested in any other land covered by same notification under Section 4 and who is also aggrieved by the award of Collector but had not filed any reference to make application before the Collector for re-determination, on the basis of amount of compensation awarded by the court. 5. In the instant case, since the reference came to be allowed by the Supreme Court and therefore, on basis of the said judgement it was open to the petitioners to file appropriate application for re-determination of compensation in terms of Section 28A of the Act. However, instead of filing any such application they made a complaint and, which as noted above, has been rejected. 6. Since the Act itself provides for machinery for re-determination of compensation in cases where there is enhancement of compensation by the court in relation to any other tenure holder covered by the same notification and therefore, we leave it open to the petitioners to avail the said remedy, if so advised. 7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly." 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the UPSIDC placed reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ C No. 38581 of 2022 (Likhi Ram vs. State of U.P. And Others) and Writ C No. 14379 of 2024 (M/S Bharat Store Ltd WRIC No. 21400 of 2025 2 Agra vs. State of U.P. And Others) and submits that the instant petition is barred by laches. 5. Considering the order passed in Digambar Singh (supra), we find that the court in identical facts wherein the claim has been set up on the basis of a judgement dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No(s) 28287-28288 of 2019 had disposed of the matter holding that on the basis of said judgement, it was open to the petitioner to file appropriate application for re-determination of compensation in terms of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, however instead of filing any such application they made a complaint and, which as noted above, has been rejected. However, leave was granted to the petitioners to avail the remedy available in the Act, 1894 itself. 6. The instant writ petition is also disposed of in terms of Digambar Singh (supra). September 25, 2025 Kirti WRIC No. 21400 of 2025 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad