HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 17878 of 2026 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Babu Ram Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and Kumari Meena, learned counsel for Prayagraj Development Authority are present. 2. On 20.05.2026, this Court passed the following order: "1. Heard Sri Salil Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Kumari Meena, learned counsel representing Prayagraj Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for the following relief :- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents for making payment of fair compensation alongwith appropriate interest to the petitioner under section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013ofBhumidhari Land of the petitioner 303 Square Yard of plot no.- 560GA, situated at village-Umarpur Neeva, Tehsil Sadar, District Prayagraj in pursuance of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in The case of Indore Development Authority versus Manohar Lal and others. Etc. as early as possible within a three month." 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the premise that the acquisition took place wayback in the year 1987. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Babu Ram Yadav, Salil Krishna Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Harsh Vardhan Gupta, Kumari Meena Vijay Narayan Ram .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Admittedly, the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser of the land in question and as such, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner is not maintainable. 4. On the joint request of the parties, the matter is adjourned. 5. Put up this matter as fresh on 25.05.2026." 3. Today, Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Babu Ram Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, appears and seeks adjournment. 4. We asked him to address us on some merits as the Division Bench found the petition to be not maintainable on account of the acquisition being very old, one of the year 1987 and the petitioner being a subsequent purchaser, the learned counsel who appears for the petitioner's holding brief, is not in a position to argue. 5. In the circumstances, we dismiss the petition for non prosecution. September 8, 2026 Mohit WRIC No. 17878 of 2026 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad