JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J 1. This case has a chequered history as the Petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition which was disposed of issuing certain directions. As the said directions were not complied with, the Petitioners filed a contempt petition which was also disposed of and ultimately the Opposite Parties-authorities passed an order which is under challenge in this petition. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that certain land was acquired by the Cuttack Development Authority (hereinafter called the "CDA"), in the year 1984 and 1986. The Petitioners claim that their father had certain land which had also been acquired and possession was taken. The said land vested in the CDA free from all encumbrances. Compensation had been taken by the petitioners' father. Writ Petition, i.e. OJC Nos. 2731 of 1988 filed by Laxman Chandra Das and 29 Ors. v. State of Orissa, was filed before this Court seeking allotment of residential plots at concessional rate. This Court vide Judgment and Order Dated 4.5.1994 disposed of the said petition issuing directions to CDA to make allotment of residential plots in favour of the-petitioners therein whose land had been acquired. Petitioners also preferred OJC Nos. 1216 of 1996 for the same relief which was disposed of vide Judgment and Order Dated 2.9.1996 directing CDA to decide the representation of the petitioners in the light of the Judgment in Laxman Chandra Das (supra). As the grievance of the Petitioners was not redressed, Petitioners filed Contempt Petition Nos. 462 of 1999 which was disposed of vide Judgment and Order Dated 17.5.2001 asking CDA to decide their representation within a stipulated period. Petitioners were allotted a land considering their representation vide letter dated 7.4.2004 for Rs. 3,36,000/- towards cost of the land. Petitioners' grievance is that the land had been allotted at rate higher than applied in earlier case. Hence this Writ Petition. 3. The matter has been heard at length several times earlier and was adjourned as prayed by the Learned Counsel for Petitioners to prepare the case, particularly to reply to the issues raised by the other side. For the reasons best known to him, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not present today. Hence this Writ Petition. 3. The matter has been heard at length several times earlier and was adjourned as prayed by the Learned Counsel for Petitioners to prepare the case, particularly to reply to the issues raised by the other side. For the reasons best known to him, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not present today. The main thrust of argument of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the land of the petitioners had been acquired under the land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter called the Act, 1894) and thus CDA was under a legal obligation to allot the residential plot at a concessional rate. Other similarly situated persons were allotted the land at a much cheaper rate, petitioners cannot be given a discriminatory treatment. Thus, the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the CDA has opposed the petition contending that the land had been allotted to certain other persons under the direction of this Court at some concessional rate but that was long back. The petitioners filed the petition at a much later stage. The cost of the land stood multiplied several times and therefore, the same rate would not be applicable. More so, a very small piece of land of the Petitioners had been acquired and the Petitioners claimed land several times more than their land acquired. Further it is submitted that the Government has not made any scheme for allotment of land to such persons and therefore, the Court is not competent to issue any such direction. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is nothing on record to show as what was the exact area of land belonging to the Petitioners' father which had been acquired. However, at the time of making submissions Learned Counsel for the Petitioners fairly conceded that the area was not very large and the land sought to be allotted in favour of the Petitioners is more than the land owned by the father of the Petitioners which had been acquired. In such a fact situation, the question does arise as to whether the Petitioners can claim a relief defeating completely the purpose of acquisition. The scheme of the Act, 1894 does not envisage any such obligation. In such a fact situation, the question does arise as to whether the Petitioners can claim a relief defeating completely the purpose of acquisition. The scheme of the Act, 1894 does not envisage any such obligation. Section 41 of the Act, 1894 provides for entering into some sort of agreement and admittedly no agreement has been executed in the instant case. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Pista Devi and Others, made an observation that where a big chunk of land belonging to a person is acquired for establishment of a residential colony such displaced person may also be considered for allotment at a concessional rate. While deciding the said case, the Apex Court considered the provisions of the Delhi Development Act which contains allotment of residential plot to such displaced persons. However, the area of the plot to be allotted would depend upon the land of the applicant acquired by the Authority. The Court observed: Although the said Section is not in terms applicable to the present acquisition proceedings, we are of the view that the above provisions in the Delhi Development Act contains a wholesome principle which should be followed by all Development Authorities throughout the country when they acquire large tracts of land for the purpose of land development in urban areas. We hope and trust that the Meerut Development Authority, for whose benefit the land in question has been acquired, will as far as practicable provide a house site or shop site of reasonable size on reasonable terms to each of the expropriated persons who have no houses or shop building in the urban area in question. However, the issue was reconsidered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Grahak Sanstha Manch and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein the Court held as under: The State Government cannot, in our Opinion, be compelled to provide alternate accommodation to the allottees of all the requisitioned premises and we reject the plea of Counsel for the petitioners in this behalf. It is for the State Government to consider the desirability and feasibility of providing alternate accommodation to such of them as would be in the interest of the administration. 7. In Ravi Khullar and Another Vs. It is for the State Government to consider the desirability and feasibility of providing alternate accommodation to such of them as would be in the interest of the administration. 7. In Ravi Khullar and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others the Supreme Court considered the Full Bench Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ramanand v. Union of India AIR 1994 Delhi 29 and its earlier Judgment in New Reviera Coop. Housing Society and Another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others wherein it has been held that if there is scheme promulgated by the State to provide alternate site to persons whose land has been acquired, the Court can issue directions in accordance with the scheme. However, the Court cannot issue any direction to make allotment of plot in every case of acquisition to such land owners. If such a principle is adopted the State would not be in a position to acquire land for public purpose. The Court held that such persons are entitled only to get compensation and in absence of any Scheme formulated by the State for rehabilitation of individual persons no person can claim land for residential purpose and the Court cannot issue any direction to make allotment of land in favour of such persons. More so, the Court cannot entertain a petition at a belated stage. 8. The Judgment in Laxman Chandra Das (supra) has been rendered by this Court following the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Pista Devi (supra), which has subsequently not been followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in later cases and particularly after the Constitution Bench Judgment in Grahak Sanstha Manch (supra). 9. We find no justification in the submission of the Learned Counsel for Petitioners that as some other persons had been allotted land under the order of this Court, the petitioners are also entitled to similar allotment at the same rate, as no discrimination can be made and CDA cannot ask the Petitioners to pay the higher rate, for the reason that Petitioners' approached this Court in 1996 while the other diligent persons had approached the Court in 1988 itself. 10. If some persons have taken a relief from this Court by filing a Writ Petition immediately after the cause of action had arisen, Petitioners cannot take the benefit thereof by filing a writ petition belatedly. 10. If some persons have taken a relief from this Court by filing a Writ Petition immediately after the cause of action had arisen, Petitioners cannot take the benefit thereof by filing a writ petition belatedly. They cannot take any benefit thereof at such a belated stage for the reason that they cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent persons. 11. In State of Karnataka and Others Vs. S.M. Kotrayya and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and latches on the ground that he filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and latches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and latches. 12. Same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others observing as under: Suffice it to state that Appellants may be sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake-up when they had impetus from Veerpal Chauhan and Ajit Singh's ratio desperate attempts of the Appellants to redo the seniority, held by them in various cadre are not amenable to the judicial review at this belated stage. The High Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of delay as well. 13. In Rup Diamonds and Others Vs. Union of India and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a case where Petitioner wanted to get the relief on the basis of the Judgment of the Supreme Court wherein a particular law had been declared ultra vires. The Court rejected the petition on the ground of delay and latches observing as under There is one more ground which basically sets the present case apart. Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they have not persued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and close to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided. 14. Same is the legal position for giving employment to the dependants of the persons interested and whose land has been acquired. In Butu Prasad Kumbhar and Others Vs. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and close to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided. 14. Same is the legal position for giving employment to the dependants of the persons interested and whose land has been acquired. In Butu Prasad Kumbhar and Others Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others the Apex Court considered the issue and held as under: Needless to say that petitioners or their ancestors were not deprived of their land without following the procedure established in law. Their land was taken under the Land Acquisition Act. They were paid compensation for it. Therefore, the challenge raised on violation of Article 21 is devoid of any merit. Even otherwise the obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of his livelihood does not extend to provide employment to every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of land. Rourkela. Plant was established for the growth of the country. It is one of the prestigious steel plants. It was established in public sector. The Government has paid market value for the land acquired. Even if the Government or the steel plant would not have offered any employment to any person it would not have resulted in violation of any fundamental right. Yet considering the poverty of the persons who were displaced both the Central and the State Government took steps to ensure that each family was protected by giving employment to at least one member in the plant. We fail to appreciate how such a step by the Government is violative of Article 21. 15. In view of the above, the law can be summarized that the person so displaced cannot claim any right of residential plot unless the scheme has been framed by the State laying down certain guidelines for rehabilitation of displaced persons. The scheme may merely provide for a preferential right and only a very few of the displaced persons may get the plots. The area to be allotted would depend upon the area of the land acquired and rate etc. has to be fixed considering the large number of other factors. 16. If the instant case is examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, a very small piece of land had been acquired in 1984-86 and compensation etc. The area to be allotted would depend upon the area of the land acquired and rate etc. has to be fixed considering the large number of other factors. 16. If the instant case is examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, a very small piece of land had been acquired in 1984-86 and compensation etc. had been paid to the Petitioners' father in accordance with law. Some other diligent persons approached this Court for seeking a relief of allotment of land for residential purpose and their petition had been allowed placing reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Pista Devi (supra). Petitioners filed the petition after more than twelve years of the acquisition of their land for the relief, which had been granted by this Court to other similarly situated persons. This Court taking a lenient view instead of dismissing the petition for delay and latches issued a direction to the CDA to consider the case of the petitioners. CDA considered the case of the petitioners and asked for the rate higher than those who had been allotted the land earlier. Allotment in favour of the petitioners is much later than others. Therefore, they cannot ask for the same rate, which was prevailing earlier. The value of the land increases day by day, more so, there is no legal right of the petitioners to get the plot at all as explained herein above. Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any force in the petition, which lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed