HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 23668 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Prabhkar Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Akhtar Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Ravi Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no.3 - U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Ghaziabad. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred for a direction commanding the respondent no.1 to release the petitioner's land Khasra No.199/3, area 0.0840 hectare, situated in village Mirzapur, Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad from acquisition proceeding, as entire proceeding in respect of petitioner's land has been lapsed under the provision of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30 of 2013). 3. The record in question reflects that initially a proposal was made by the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Parishad') for housing purpose. The notification dated 10.11.1998 was issued under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam, 1965'). A notification under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1965 was published well within time. It is also reflected from the record that as there was an urgency clause in the acquisition proceedings consequently, Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was invoked on 28.11.1998. 4. Sri Ravi Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for the Parishad, has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on two fold grounds, firstly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and secondly, though it is an admitted fact that acquisition proceedings were initiated way back in the year 1998 but since there was urgency clause, the possession was taken on 15.2.2007 and consequently, land was vested with the State. Later on, when the new Act i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhtar Ali Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Nipun Singh, Vivek Saran Gordhan And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Act, 2013') came into existence w.e.f. 1.1.2014, the award was fixed under the Act, 2013 on 23.3.2015. In this backdrop, he states that once the land was acquired, urgency clause was invoked and possession was taken in the year 2007, the land gets vested in the State free from all encumbrances so invoking provisions under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is not permissible, as such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. However, he fairly states that it is always expected from the tenure holders to press his relief before the competent authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.) for disbursement of compensation in accordance with law. 5. Confronted with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer that the petitioner may be granted leave to approach the S.L.A.O. concerned for disbursement of the compensation. 6. Considering the factual situation, and without adverting anything on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of finally with an observation that in case the petitioner approaches the S.L.A.O. concerned along with requisite documents, his application for disbursement shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the S.L.A.O. concerned, strictly in accordance with law and amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith, if there is no legal impediment. September 15, 2025 Salim WRIC No. 23668 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad