Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105556-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20939 of 2025 Petitioner :- Umesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kavindra Singh,Ram Sajiwan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Akhileshwar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 3.4.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compensation or allotment of alternative land in respect of his Bhoomidhari land allegedly encroached upon by the respondent authorities has been rejected. The grievance of the petitioner is that without obtaining his consent or initiating acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, the authorities constructed a C.C. Road and K.C. Drain over his land bearing Arazi Nos. 240 and 241, situated in Mauja Chaknathua, Tehsil Madiyahu, District Jaunpur, under the "Dr. Ambedkar Gram Sabha Vikas Yojana". Despite objections raised by the petitioner and directions issued in earlier writ petitions and contempt proceedings filed by him, the respondent authorities failed to provide him compensation or alternate land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 3.4.2025 is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the petitioner's fundamental and statutory rights. It is contended that the petitioner's private land has been utilized for a public purpose without initiating any legal acquisition proceedings or payment of compensation as mandated under law. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment and order of Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court dated 04.03.2025 passed in WRIT - C No. - 27598 of 2020 (Kanyawati vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others) and judgment and order dated 02.01.2025 of Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.17 of 2025 (Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others vs. Governent of Karnataka and others). 4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, has opposed the writ petition and supported the impugned order dated 3.4.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur. He has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that the land in question, i.e., Arazi Nos. 240 and 241, over which the C.C. Road and K.C. Drain were constructed under the "Dr. Ambedkar Gram Sabha Vikas Yojana," had been lying unused for a considerable period, and that the construction was undertaken in the larger public interest. It is further submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioner after more than a decade from the date of construction is not bona fide, and appears to have been raised only when the market value of the land appreciated significantly. Learned counsel points out that the petitioner was fully aware of the construction work at the relevant time, but did not raise any timely objection or approach any legal forum within a reasonable period. It is further urged that the contention of the petitioner that he was misled by the authorities into believing that the road was being constructed on Gram Sabha land is unsubstantiated and belated. The learned counsel emphasizes that even assuming part of the petitioner's land was utilized inadvertently, the delay in seeking redress and the absence of any steps taken for nearly ten years disentitles him from any equitable or legal relief. He lastly submits that the District Magistrate, after due consideration of the survey report, previous court directions, and hearing of the petitioner, rightly held that no compensation or alternate land is liable to be granted at this belated stage, and that the construction serves the public purpose for the benefit of the village community. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Chief 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 C.C. Road and K.C. Drain was completed over a decade ago under a government scheme aimed at rural development, and the petitioner did not take timely steps to raise his objections or assert his rights. The District Magistrate has rightly considered all aspects, including the long delay, lack of contemporaneous objection, and overriding public interest, and passed a reasoned order declining compensation or alternate allotment. This Court finds no procedural irregularity or perversity in the decision- making process of the District Magistrate. In this regard, reliance has also been placed by the learned District Magistrate 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. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Kanyawati (supra) and Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz (supra) are of no assistance to the petitioner, as the same are clearly distinguishable on facts. 6. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 NLY Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad