HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31034 of 2025 Court No. - 29 (SL No.8) HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Vikas Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the Gorakhpur Development Authority (in short, 'the Authority'). 3. The instant writ petition is preferred inter alia with following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act Notification No. 3325/77-3-10-285 Arjan/09 dated 27.12.2010 whereby the land of the petitioner which was proposed to be acquired by under Notification No. 3665/77-3-09-286 Arian/09 dated 07.12.2009 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act in respect of Plot (Khasra) No. 298 situated at Village Kalesar, Pargana Bhauwapar, Tehsil Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess/ acquire the land in question of the petitioner without pay the award/ compensation in pursuant to declaration dated 27.12.2010 having Notification No. 3325/77-3-10-286 Ajan/09 whereby the land of the petitioner which was proposed to be acquired by Notification No. 3665/77-3-09-286 Arjan/09 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devendra Kumar, Vikas Chauhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vibhu Rai Satyendra Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) dated 07.12.2009 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act in respect of Plot (Khasra) No. 298 situated at Village Kalesar, Pargana Bhawapar, Tehsil Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur." 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant writ petition on two fold submissions. Firstly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and secondly even on merit, as the petitioner was aggrieved with the quantum of compensation he has preferred the reference which is admittedly pending consideration and without divulging the same the instant writ petition preferred. 5. Initially an objection was raised and subsequently the said factual aspect has been brought on record along with the supplementary affidavit. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of fact. 6. Confronted with this situation learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that at this stage, the petitioner is not inclined to question the validity of the notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, in the interest of justice a direction be issued for deciding the Reference Suit No. 314 of 2025 (Satendra and Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Authority and others), which has been preferred by the light the petitioner invoking the proceedings under Section 64 of the Act, 2013. 7. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon a judgement of dated 24.01.2023, the Division Bench in Bunch of the matter leading Writ C No. 65283 of 2012 (Chandradev and Others vs. State of U.p. and Others), wherein though the Division Bench had dismissed the writ petition but observed that against the award the petitioner have a remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act. 8. Considering the fact and circumstances and without adverting on the merits of the case, it is provided that in case the Reference Suit No. 314 of 2025 filed by the petitioner is well within limitation and is still pending, definitely the same would be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. WRIC No. 31034 of 2025 2 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of with. September 15, 2025 Shubham Arya WRIC No. 31034 of 2025 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad