Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124850-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23075 of 2025 Petitioner :- Somdutt And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Phool Singh Yadav,Vaibhav Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ishan Deo Giri,Suresh C. Dwivedi Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Phool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction questioning the validity of order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) Kanpur Nagar and further to direct the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) Kanpur Nagar to accept fresh application of the petitioners for sending reference to the court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"). 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. In support of their submission, they submitted that for the same cause of action, the petitioners have earlier preferred a writ petition being Writ C No.12856 of 2024 (Somdutt and others v. The Additional Collector, Land Acquisition and another) wherein a case was set up for direction to the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition), Kanpur Nagar to make reference under Section 18 of the Act on the basis of purported application dated 02.08.2015 within a stipulated period. They submitted that that at the admission stage, the respondent authority has taken objection that at no point of time any such application was moved on 02.08.2015. The Division Bench while disposing of the writ petition on 03.05.2024 has relegated the matter to the respondent authority with an observation to take into consideration the objection so raised by the respondent counsel and the competent authority shall pass an order but certainly record finding in relation to receipt/non-receipt of the reference application in its office after considering the evidence of the petitioners and said exercise was to be carried out with six weeks from the date of communication of the said order. They further submit that no satisfactory explanation has been submitted by the petitioners before the respondent authority in compliance of aforesaid order and the petitioners have failed to substantiate their claim that they have filed any reference application in the year 2015. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the impugned order has been passed with categorical finding that the Division Bench while disposing of the writ petition has already accorded an opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their claim before the respondent authority, but they have failed in doing so. 5. In view of aforesaid objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents, we have also proceeded to examine the record and asked learned counsel for the petitioners to furnish detail as to whether there was any receipt number of the said reference application, only an endorsement has been shown, which is without any stamp. 6. Considering the factual situation as award of compensation was made in the year 2015 after acquisition of the land was made in the same year. Apparently, the petitioners have lifted the compensation in the year 2015 itself. Subsequently, a claim which has been set up on the basis of purported application of the year 2015. Thereafter, a writ petition was also preferred in the year 2024 with innocuous prayer to make reference under section 18 of the Act, on the basis of purported application dated 02.08.2015. 7. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 that warrants any interference in the writ jurisdiction. The instant writ petition sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Manish Himwan (Prashant Kumar,J.) (M.C. Tripathi, J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad