Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114603-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18391 of 2025 Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Narayan Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard Shri Prem Narayan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the land belonging to his father was acquired under the order dated 07.08.1981. It is stated that the petitioner, being the successor of the original tenure-holder, along with other similarly situated farmers, submitted an application before respondent no.3 seeking allotment of alternative land in lieu of the acquired land. 3. It is further contended that a report dated 19.06.1982 was submitted by the Tehsildar, Sardhana, Baghpat before the Consolidation Officer concerned, recommending allotment of alternative land in favour of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that, despite the lapse of a significant period of time, no alternative land has been allotted to him in pursuance of the recommendation made by the Tehsildar. It is also contended that no compensation has been paid to him in respect of the land acquired. Learned counsel submits that, in light of these circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application dated 15.12.2024 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baraut, District Baghpat, seeking appropriate relief. However, the said application remains pending till date. Accordingly, a prayer is made for a direction to the said authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application, strictly in accordance with law and within a reasonable time. 5. In response, learned Standing Counsel submits that the matter pertains to an acquisition made more than four decades ago, and over this long period of time, there is a strong likelihood that the situation on the ground may have undergone substantial changes, which may affect the feasibility or legality of the relief sought. 6. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases where challenge to land acquisition or relief relating to it is delayed without sufficient explanation, such claims are not liable to be entertained. In Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal & Ors., JT 2011 (5) SC 106, after referring to earlier decisions including Girdharan Prasad Missir v. State of Bihar, (1980) 2 SCC 83, Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur v. Bheru Lal, (2002) 7 SCC 712, and Sawarn Lata v. State of Haryana, (2010) 4 SCC 532, the Court held that delay in filing a writ petition challenging land acquisition should be viewed seriously, and relief must be denied if the petitioner fails to provide a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to place any material on record to establish that the acquisition proceedings were either illegal or vitiated by any procedural irregularity. The writ petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches, as the acquisition proceedings were initiated way back in the year 1981. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation for this prolonged delay, no justification is made out for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction at such a belated stage. 8. In view of the above, the Court finds no merit in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 A. Tripathi Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad