# Sarvesh Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 638
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-09
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3630 of 2026
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Kunal Ravi Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sarvesh-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54264
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager (supra) and Nedungadi Bank
Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty (supra), I am of the considered view that although the law has not
prescribed any period of Limitation, the petitioner ought to have filed his claim for re-engagement
in service with reasonable promptness. Submission of two applications for re-engagement ? first in
the year 1997, i.e., seven years after his dis-engagement and the second in the year 2004, fourteen
years since his dis-engagement and thereafter complete inaction for eleven years, amounts to
latches and the claim for re-engagement in service filed twenty five years after his dis-engagement,
is barred by delay and latches as per the principles laid down in the cases of Union of India v. N.
Murugesan (supra) and SBI v. M.J. James (supra).

22. In these circumstances, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has
not committed any illegality or error in dismissing the petitioner's claim on the ground of delay.

23. The Writ Petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed at the admission stage.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 638
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 3630 of 2026

Sarvesh Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 (a) Whether the Court can exercise its discretionary power u/Art. 226, when there is inordinate delay in filing
the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final?
(b) Whether petitioners are entitled for the compensation at the current circle rate?

Headnotes
A. Land Reform Law - Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4 r/w Section 17(4) and Section 6 r/w
Section 17(1) - The order or action, if ultra vires the power, becomes void and it does not confer
any right. The action need not necessarily be set at naught in all events. Though the order may be void,
if the party does not approach the Court within reasonable time, which is always a question of
fact and have the order invalidated or acquiesced or waived, the discretion of the Court has to be
exercised in a reasonable manner. (Para 12)

Where the Court quashes the acquisition on the grounds personal to individual objectors-such as vitiated
consideration of their specific objections u/s 5A, the relief operates "in personam" and benefits only those
parties, who contested the matter before the judicial forum. (Para 16)
2 All. Sarvesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
639
In the instant proceeding, the award was made in the year 2010. Even from the date of taking possession,
the previous writ petition was preferred with inordinate delay of more than 15 years, as such no interference
is required in the instant matter at this belated stage. (Para 13)

B. A writ petition challenging the notification for acquisition of land, if filed after the possession
having been taken, is not maintainable. (Para 14, 15)

In the instant proceeding, the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1996, the award was made in
the year 2010 and first time the writ petition was instituted by the petitioners in the year 2025. As such, there
is hardly any scope to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 16)

In the instant matter, first time the petitioners approached this Court, without any challenge to the acquisition
proceeding, in the year 2025, only asking for the compensation under the Act, 2013. As such, no interference
can be made at this belated stage. (Para 17)

No infirmity or illegality is found in the order impugned, which may warrant any interference in writ
jurisdiction. However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that in case the petitioners have not lifted the
compensation, they are at liberty to move appropriate application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer
(SLAO) for disbursement of compensation, which was deposited in view of the award made in the year 2010.
(Para 18)

Writ petition disposed of. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Swaran Lata & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 532 (Para 12)
2. State of Rajasthan Vs. D.R. Laxmi, (1996) 6 SCC 445 (Para 12)
3. Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2008 AIR SCW 1574 (Para 14)
4. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
(1996) 11 SCC 501 (Para 14)
5. Hari Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1020 (Para 15)

List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013.

List of Keywords
acquisition, land, validity, compensation, fair.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Raj Kishor Mishra
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Shiv Prakash Gupta, Yash Padia

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.
& Hon'ble Kunal Ravi Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Yash Padia, learned counsel for the Kanpur
Development Authority (in short "Authority").

2. The instant writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for
following reliefs:-
640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 29.12.2025 passed by respondent no.2/ District Magistrate, District Kanpur Nagar.

(2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Prescribed
Authority to pass afresh order regarding the compensation of the petitioners of Arazi No.82 area
0.1180 hectare and Gata No.503 area 0.1540 hectare situated at Village Bairi, Akbarpur Kachhar,
District Kanpur Nagar at the present circle rate.

(3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the
respondents to make rehabilitation and resettlement award as per provisions of Act, 2013."

3. The factual matrix giving rise to the instant writ petition is that the proceeding under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "Act, 1894) in respect of area notified under Section 4 read
with Section 17 (4) and Section 6 read with Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1894 was gazetted for 07
revenue villages of District Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. A notification under Section 4 of the Act,
1894 was issued for planned development of New Kanpur City in the official gazette of the State of
Uttar Pradesh on 9th August, 1996 in respect of a huge area of land of seven revenue villages. The
notification was also published in different newspapers. The last such publication was made on
20.12.1996. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was published on 17.12.1997 in the
official gazette. The provisions of Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act, 1894 were resorted to and
as such enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 was dispensed with. Various writ petitions were
preferred by the aggrieved persons questioning the validity of the acquisition proceeding. The Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.66471 of 2005 (Mahavir Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors.)
was filed challenging the validity of the acquisition proceeding, which was allowed vide order
dated 26.09.2006 with following observations:-

"......The result therefore is that the Statutory prescribed period for making the
declaration under Section 6 of the Act having lapsed, all actions and consequences subsequent to
the notification under Section 4 of the Act stand vitiated. The impugned declaration under Section 6
of the Act dated 03.10.2005 is quashed, so far as the land involved in these petitions are concerned.
The writ petitions accordingly succeed and are allowed with no order as to costs."

4. The record reflects that the petitioners' father, who was recorded tenure holder had never
challenged the acquisition proceeding during his life time, first time the petitioners had preferred
Writ-C No.37666 of 2025 (Sarvesh Kumar & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) in the year 2025, which
was disposed of on 3.11.2025 with following observations:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Abhinav Krishna Srivastava, learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.3, and Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners are the recorded tenure holder of Gata No.82 area
0.1180 hectare, Gata no.503 area 0.1540 hectare situated in village Bairi Akbarpur Kachhar,
District Kanpur Nagar. Even though, the land was acquired but till date the actual compensation
had not been disbursed.

5. Considering the factual situation, we are not inclined to issue notice or to invite
counter affidavit to the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is
disposed of with an observation that in case, the petitioner moves a detailed representation before
2 All. Sarvesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
641
the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar/respondent no.2 in accordance with law, within a period of
two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent no.2 in further
three months but certainly after giving opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders. "

5. In response to the aforesaid order, the claim of the petitioners had been considered and
rejected by the order impugned, hence the instant writ petition has been preferred with aforequoted
reliefs.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this backdrop, states that the order impugned is per se
unsustainable as the petitioners are entitled for compensation at the current circle rate. He states
that direction may be issued to the respondents to make award as per the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(in short "Act, 2013").

7. Per contra, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition
and submitted that initially acquisition proceedings were initiated for Planned Development of
"Kanpur New City", which was challenged by various tenure holders. The acquisition proceedings
were also tested in the leading Writ Petition No.66471 of 2005 (Mahavir Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd.
v. State of U.P. & Ors.). The said writ petition was allowed and the impugned declaration under
Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was quashed qua the land involved in the said petition. He submits that
admittedly for other tenure holders, who have not challenged the acquisition, the award was made
with respect to their land in the year 2010. Admittedly qua petitioners' holding, award was made
but till date no such challenge has been made to the award. Inspite of the remedy of reference, the
petitioners did not approach the competent court. Only a belated attempt has been made by the
petitioners in the previous round of litigation, which was instituted in the year 2025, wherein an
innocuous relief was prayed for according compensation. The Division Bench, without adverting to
the merits of the matter, had disposed of the same with a direction to the respondents to decide the
representation of the petitioners. In response thereof, the order impugned had rightly been passed
by the respondents. He submits that admittedly the award qua the petitioner was made in the year
2010 and till date the same has not been upset by any competent court. At this belated stage, the
relief as prayed for, is totally misconceived and the order impugned does not warrant any
interference in writ jurisdiction. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, in support of his
submissions, has also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated
16.05.2012, passed in a bunch of writ petitions with leading Writ Petition No.32875 of 2009 (Smt.
Krishana Tomar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.).

8. Shri Yash Padia, learned counsel for the Authority has also corroborated the arguments so
advanced by learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel. In addition, he has also argued that the
acquisition was made for planned development and admittedly neither the father of the petitioners
nor the petitioners themselves had ever challenged the acquisition. Admittedly, the award has also
attained finality and after more than 16 years of award, no such relief can be accorded and the order
impugned is legally sustainable under the present facts and circumstances of the case.

9. We have heard rival submissions, perused the record and respectfully considered the
judgments cited at Bar.
642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. We find that no doubt the petitioners had never challenged the acquisition, which was of
the year 2005. The relief accorded by the Division Bench in Mahavir Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd.
(Supra) was only available to those petitioners, who had challenged the acquisition. In the said
proceeding, the Court had categorically observed that quashing is only qua the petitioners in the
said proceeding. As such, in absence of any challenge to the acquisition by the petitioners or their
predecessors, no such relief can be accorded. The argument that the petitioners are entitled to
receive the compensation as per the Act, 2013 is also misplaced inasmuch as for the first time the
petitioners had approached this Court in the year 2025 for a direction to the respondents to disburse
the compensation. Admittedly the award is of the year 2010. In absence of any challenge or
reference, no such relief, as has been prayed for, can be accorded under the Act, 2013. The
quashing of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 vide order dated 26.09.2006 was only qua
the petitioners, those have approached the Court at the relevant point of time and the same cannot
be applied to other tenure holders, who have not challenged the same.

11. We have also proceeded to consider the judgment in Smt. Krishna Tomar & Ors. (Supra).
In the said proceeding, same notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 were under
challenge. The Division Bench had considered the objection of the respondents that the petitions
were barred by gross delay and laches and had also considered the judgment passed by the Division
Bench in Mahavir Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. (Supra). The Division Bench had also taken note of the
fact that large number of writ petitions in respect of same acquisition of the remaining portion of
111.84 hects. were filed and had been dismissed by this Court on the ground of laches. In the said
proceeding, learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the order dated
24.2.2012 in Writ Petition No.10116 of 2012, Narendra Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
which for ready reference is quoted as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh appearing for
respondent No.4 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 3.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notifications of section 4
and 6 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 dated 16.8.1988 and 22.2.1989 respectively.

This writ petition has been filed on 17.2.2012 i.e. after more than twenty years of
declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.

The Apex Court in the case of Sawaran Lata vs. State of U.P. and others reported in
2010(4) SCC 532 has laid down following in paragraph 10:-

"10. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi wherein this
Court has held that even the void proceedings need not be set at naught if the party has not
approached the court within reasonable time, as judicial review is not permissible at a belated
stage. This Court held as under:

"9. Delay in challenging the notification was fatal and writ petition entails with dismissal
on grounds of laches. It is thus, well-settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the
writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court
should be loath to quash the notifications.

10. The order or action, if ultra vires the power, becomes void and it does not confer any
right. But the action need not necessarily be set at naught in all events. Though the order may be
void, if the party does not approach the Court within reasonable time, which is always a question
of fact and have the order invalidated or acquiesced or waived, the discretion of the Court has to
2 All. Sarvesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
643
be exercised in a reasonable manner. When the discretion has been conferred on the Court, the
Court may in appropriate case decline to grant the relief, even if it holds that the order was void.
The net result is that extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court may not be exercised in such
circumstances."

Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Northern India Glass Industries v.
Jaswant Singh and Haryana State Handloom & Handicrafts Corpn. Ltd. vs. Jain School Society."

A Full Bench of this Court in bunch of writ petitions being leading Writ Petition
No.37443 of 2001 (Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 21st October, 2011
had occasion to consider the issue of laches in entertaining the writ petition challenging land
acquisition proceedings. The writ petitions, which were filed with inordinate delay were dismissed.

Present is a case where acquisition is sought to be challenged after more than 10 years
and there is no explanation in the writ petition which may furnish any ground for entertaining the
writ petition after such a long period.

The writ petition being barred by laches is dismissed."

12. While dismissing the writ petitions in Smt. Krishna Tomar & Ors. (Supra) the Division
Bench had also considered the judgment passed in Swaran Lata & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.,
(2010) 4 SCC 532, wherein the Supreme Court relying upon State of Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi,
(1996) 6 SCC 445 held that the order or action, if ultra vires the power, becomes void and it does
not confer any right. The action need not necessarily be set at naught in all events. Though the
order may be void, if the party does not approach the Court within reasonable time, which is always
a question of fact and have the order invalidated or acquiesced or waived, the discretion of the
Court has to be exercised in a reasonable manner.

13. In the instant proceeding, undisputed position, which emerges out is that the award was
made in the year 2010. Even from the date of taking possession, the previous writ petition was
preferred with inordinate delay of more than 15 years, as such no interference is required in the
instant matter at this belated stage.

14. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan &
Ors., 2008 AIR SCW 1574 has deprecated the practice of filing writ petitions after possession has
been taken and award has become final and held that the said writ petitions are liable to be
dismissed for delay and laches. Similar view has also been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 501 in which it is held:-

"It is thus well-settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition
and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be
loath to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article
226 of the Constitution to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section
6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the
award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to
quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the
power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case is hardly a
ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of
laches."

15. Similar view has also been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Singh & Ors. v. State
of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1020, wherein interference has been denied only on the ground of
delay as it would cause serious public prejudice. The Courts have repeatedly held that a writ
petition challenging the notification for acquisition of land, if filed after the possession having been
taken, is not maintainable.

16. In the instant proceeding, what we find is that the acquisition proceedings were initiated in
the year 1996, the award was made in the year 2010 and first time the writ petition was instituted
by the petitioners in the year 2025. As such, there is hardly any scope to exercise our discretionary
jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India in the instant matter. We further observe that
where the Court quashes the acquisition on the grounds personal to individual objectors-such as
vitiated consideration of their specific objections under Section 5A, the relief operates "in
personam" and benefits only those parties, who contested the matter before the judicial forum.

17. In Smt. Krishna Tomar & Ors. (Supra) similar benefits had been denied in terms of
Mahavir Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. and the writ petition was dismissed in the year 2012 itself,
whereas in the instant matter, first time the petitioners approached this Court, without any
challenge to the acquisition proceeding, in the year 2025, only asking for the compensation under
the Act, 2013. As such, no interference can be made at this belated stage.

18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the
order impugned, which may warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction. However, in the interest
of justice, it is provided that in case the petitioners have not lifted the compensation, they are at
liberty to move appropriate application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) for
disbursement of compensation, which was deposited in view of the award made in the year 2010.

19. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 644
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Writ C No. 5663 of 2026

M/s Scc Builders Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents