ORDER : 1. The present case is taken up through Audio/Video conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Giridih (respondent no. 2) in Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2019 (wrongly mentioned as 19 of 2019) whereby the claim of the petitioner for compensation in respect of a piece of land measuring an area of 13 decimals appertaining to Plot no. 403 under Khata No. 20 of Mouza-Upraili Dhanwar, District-Giridih (hereinafter to be called “the said land”) has been rejected in the light of order dated 10.01.2019 passed in W.P. (C) No. 951 of 2015. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay compensation for the said land at the present market rate under the provisions of “Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short “the Act, 2013”) with statutory interest within a specified period. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the land under Plot No. 403, Khata No. 20 situated in Mouza-Upraili Dhanwar measuring an area of 46 decimals was recorded in the name of Bakar Mian in the record of rights prepared during survey operation as his raiyati land. Out of said 46 decimals, 11 decimals of land was acquired by the respondents vide Land Acquisition Case No. 38 of 1957-58 and the compensation was also paid to the recorded tenant i.e. Bakar Mian through an award dated 23.03.1959. After the death of Bakar Mian, his only son Gani Mian and two daughters inherited 35 decimals of the said land. Uneja Khatoon wife of Gani Mian purchased the share of one sister of Gani Mian to the extent of 10½ decimals. The said Uneja Khatoon being the sole owner of land measuring 13 decimals, sold the said land to different purchasers namely Basudeo Prasad Agarwal jointly with Md. Musa Khan (petitioner), Jamila Khatoon, Safina Khatoon, Manaur Sheikh and Sanwar Seikh by way of five different sale deeds all dated 21.02.1992. The area which was sold jointly to Basudeo Prasad Agarwal and the petitioner was 05 decimals and the rest four were sold two decimals each (total 13 decimals). However, the petitioner purchased the share of Basudeo Prasad Agarwal measuring 2 ½ decimals on 14.02.2015. The area which was sold jointly to Basudeo Prasad Agarwal and the petitioner was 05 decimals and the rest four were sold two decimals each (total 13 decimals). However, the petitioner purchased the share of Basudeo Prasad Agarwal measuring 2 ½ decimals on 14.02.2015. On 11.09.2012, the aforesaid purchasers executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the petitioner authorizing him to contest legal proceedings in the matter of aforesaid piece of land. On 16.01.2015, the petitioner made representation before the District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih (respondent no. 3) for payment of compensation in respect of the said land measuring an area of 13 decimals out of 15 decimals claiming that apart from the acquired land, the respondents have also constructed road upon the said land without paying any compensation. However, no step was taken by the respondent no. 3 which compelled the petitioner to file writ petition before this court which was registered as W.P. (C) No. 951 of 2015. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.01.2019 with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer a representation before the respondent no. 2 who was directed to consider the same and to come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioner was indeed entitled for payment of compensation as claimed by him and to pass a reasoned order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner made representation along with a copy of the order dated 10.01.2019 passed in W.P. (C) No. 951 of 2015 before the respondent no. 2 on 27.02.2019. Accordingly, Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2019 was registered by the respondent no. 2, however vide impugned order dated 13.09.2019, the respondent no. 2 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly only an area of 11 decimals out of 46 decimals of the land recorded in the name of Bakar Mian was acquired. Though the recorded raiyat-Bakar Mian did not file any objection under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the “Act, 1894”) yet it does not mean that he had no objection with regard to use of extra 15 decimals of the said land. Though the recorded raiyat-Bakar Mian did not file any objection under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the “Act, 1894”) yet it does not mean that he had no objection with regard to use of extra 15 decimals of the said land. Since there was no notification either under section 4 or 6 of the Act, 1894 for the said 15 decimals of land beyond the acquired 11 decimals of land, any question of raising objection under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 could not and did not arise. In this view of the matter, the very reason which has been assigned by the respondent no. 2 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation is not only extraneous but perverse also as well as against the statutory provisions of law and thus the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The respondents have admitted the fact regarding use of the said land and thus are bound to pay compensation after following the process of acquisition. In absence of any acquisition under the Act, 1894, the admitted use of said land for road i.e. for public purpose, makes the respondents liable to pay compensation in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2013. The raiyati land could not have been taken over and possessed for the purpose of use of road without its acquisition and without payment of compensation which amounts to violation of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that vide letter no. 137 dated 16.05.2008, though the respondent no. 3 had requested the respondent no. 4 for payment of compensation after taking proper steps for acquisition of the remaining land being used for the purpose of road, yet the same was ignored. 5. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. S.C. - II appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that in compliance of the order dated 10.01.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 951 of 2015, the respondent no. 2 has passed a detailed order after taking into consideration all the relevant documents and the same being completely justified needs no interference of this Court. It is further submitted that neither the recorded raiyat nor his legal heirs ever claimed compensation for the land on which road was constructed prior to acquisition of the land measuring an area of 11 decimals. It is further submitted that neither the recorded raiyat nor his legal heirs ever claimed compensation for the land on which road was constructed prior to acquisition of the land measuring an area of 11 decimals. The petitioner and others in spite of being fully aware of the said fact, purchased the part of the road and started claiming compensation which may not be allowed being a belated one. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The petitioner is claiming compensation for the said land on the ground that the respondent-State has occupied it without paying any compensation either to the recorded raiyat or the petitioner and others who are the subsequent purchasers of the part of the said land. 8. In the case of Syed Maqbool Ali vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2011) 15 SCC 383 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “12. The High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. It is not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them or the community as for example, construction of an access road to the village or their property, or construction of a village tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. When they offer their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or negligible value. 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. Be that as it may.” 9. In the present case, admittedly 11 decimals of the said land was acquired by the respondent State and the compensation thereof was paid to the recorded raiyat at the time of acquisition itself i.e. in the year 1959. The respondent no. Be that as it may.” 9. In the present case, admittedly 11 decimals of the said land was acquired by the respondent State and the compensation thereof was paid to the recorded raiyat at the time of acquisition itself i.e. in the year 1959. The respondent no. 2 after perusal of the documents placed before him, found that the road on the said land was in existence even at the time of acquisition of 11 decimals land and the recorded tenant accepted compensation without raising any objection under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. Perhaps the recorded raiyat being fully aware of the fact that there existed a public road over the said land, voluntarily chose not to claim compensation for the same. Be that as it may. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Maqbool Ali (supra), claim of compensation for the road after several decades cannot be entertained under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 10. It is evident that the petitioner and others purchased the land in question in the year 1992 and only thereafter moved before the State authorities claiming compensation of the said land. Thus, it appears that the petitioner and others being fully aware of the fact that there was an old road over the said land, purchased it just to claim compensation for the same. Moreover, after disposal of W.P. (C) no. 951 of 2015, the respondent no. 2 has examined the petitioner’s case and rejected his claim by a reasoned order after taking into consideration of the relevant records. The learned counsel for the petitioner has given emphasis to the argument that the respondent authorities have accepted the fact that no compensation has been paid for the land in question. I am of the considered view that such a belated claim of compensation after about 60 years by the subsequent purchasers is not worth consideration. 11. The present writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.