AFR Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5104 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Singh And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. (Per : Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.) 1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Raghvendra Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition th e principal relief sought is for issuance of a direction to respondent nos.2 and 3 to consider the claim of the petitioners for providing compensation in lieu of acquisition of land plot nos.6, 43, 48 and 193 total area 68 decimal (0.297 hectares) situated in Village Pratap Patti, Pargana Athgawan, Tehsil Pindra, District Varanasi in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 along with the interest and other consequential benefits. 3. Learned Standing Counsel has raised an objection that the petitioners had on an earlier occasion approached this Court by filing a writ petition, Writ-C No.26865 of 2018 (Mandhata Singh & 5 Ors. Vs. State of UP & 2 Ors.) which was dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2018, in the following terms:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing co unsel has appeared for the respondents. The petitioners by means of this writ petition want a direction for payment of compensation of their land pl ot nos. 6, 43, 48 and 193 situate in village Pratap Patti Pargana Athgawan, Tehsil Pindra and District Varanasi under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The averments as made in the writ petition disclose that according to the petitioners, the aforesaid land was never acquired but was unauthorizedly occupied by the respondents long back. The relevant observation made by the Supreme Court is reproduced herein below:- "But decades later, when land values increase, either on account of passage of time or on account of developments or improvements carried out by the State, the landholders come up with belated claims alleging that their lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent. When such claims are made after several decades, the State would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily. Therefore, belated writ petitions, without proper explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed."