Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140139-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26682 of 2025 Petitioner :- Premvijay Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Bansal,Shivam Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Akanksha Gaur,C.S.C.,Nagesh Kumar,Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Heard Mr. Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Nagesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Mrs. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel for the National Highway Authority of India and perused the material brought on the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed with following principal reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the Respondent No.2 namely National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to prepare the compensation in accordance with law and as per the Right To Fair Compensation Act of 2013. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents to conclude the pending process before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jhansi so that the compensation of the petitioner may be released in the form of declaration of award with respect to Khasra No. 338K of Village Budha, Tehsil & Distrct Jhansi." 3. At the very outset, Mrs. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel for the National Highway Authority of India raised a preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the instant petition with two fold submissions i.e. firstly, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and secondly, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1956") and the notification under Section 3(A)- 1 of the Act, 1956 was notified on 07.02.2005 and later on, notification under Section 3(D)-1 of the Act, 1956 had also been issued in the Gazette Notification dated 20.08.2005 and the award in Case No.8 of 2005 was also declared on 19.04.2006 and till date, there is no such challenge to the said proceedings as the land was acquired for the public purpose, therefore, at this belated stage, no such relief can be accorded in favour of the petitioner. She further raised an objection that adequate compensation had already been submitted to the Special Land Acquisition Officer through communication dated 25.05.2006 against the demand of Rs.Rs.1,50,00000/-(One crore fifty lacs only) and the same was duly communicated to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jhansi for the distribution through Bank Account No.3762001800000029 in Punjab National Bank, Jhansi of competent Authority and Project Director, NHAI, Jhansi and in absence of any such challenge, the relief as has been prayed for is totally misconceived and devoid of merits. 4. 4. Once the objection has been raised, we have proceeded to peruse the record in question and the relief as has been prayed for by the petitioner herein. We find that in the instant matter, for the purpose of construction of Jhansi Bypass from Km.80.000 to 173.600 of NH-25, the acquisition proceeding took place in the year 2005 and the award was also made on 19.4.2006 and till date there is no challenge to the same and it is also informed by the learned counsel for the NHAI that in the light of the communication dated 25.05.2006 which was sent by the Project Director, NHAI, PIU (E-W), Jhansi to the Competent Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer (Joint Organization) District Jhansi, wherein, it is also apprised to the Disbursing Authority to release the compensation. In view of the admitted fact, the land was acquired for the public purpose and adequate compensation has been deposited by the Acquiring Authority to the Special Land Acquisition Officer and without challenge to the acquisition proceedings, the relief as has been prayed for is devoid of merit. Further, Hon'ble the Apex Court in Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1574, has categorically held that after taking over the possession and the award having become final, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Further, the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. the Industrial Development & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 1996 AIR SCW 8871, has held that a writ petition challenging the notification for acquisition of land if filed after the possession, then the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In the instant matter, admittedly, the acquisition took place for National Highway in the year 2005 and the possession was taken over and later on road/bypass has also been constructed and award was made in the year 2006. Therefore, in absence of any challenge to the acquisition proceedings, at this belated stage, we are not inclined to entertain the instant petition for the relief. 5. However, in the interest of justice, in case the petitioner claims that he is rightful owner of the land in question which was subject matter of notification, he may press the relief before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law for release of the compensation in lieu of the award dated 19.04.2006. 6. With the aforesaid leave, the instant petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Sachin Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad