LAWS(ALL)-2004-9-11

NASEEB AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On September 23, 2004
NASEEB AHMAD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute, which had been subject-matter of the land acquisition proceedings and declare that the said proceedings stood lapsed.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondents issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and the same was published on 6.6.1983 in the U. P. Gazette, in respect of 362-12-14 bighas comprising in revenue estate of 2-3 villages. It included the land of the petitioner No. 4 consisting of Khasra No. 4 measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in respect of the said entire land on 16.6.1983 alongwith a notification under Sections 17 and 17 (1A) of the Act. Thus, the provisions of Section 5A of the Act were dispensed with. On 2.4.1985, the possession of the most of land had been taken but certain plots were left out. The award was made on 22.9.1986 but it was not in respect of Khasra No. 4, i.e., land in dispute. However, on the said date, supplementary award was made in respect of the left out plots including the land of petitioner No. 4. The writ petition has been filed challenging the said supplementary award on the ground that by virtue of the amendment in Act, which came into force on 24th September, 1984, the award could be made only upto 23rd September, 1986 and not at subsequent stage, as it would lapse by virtue of the provisions of Section 11A of the Act and the supplementary award was made subsequently, though purported to have been made on 22.9.1986 and it is not the real and genuine award. Signature of the then Special Land Acquisition Officer have been forged.

(3.) We have heard Shri D. V. Jaiswal. learned counsel for the petitioners Shri C.K. Rai, learned standing counsel for the State and Shri Ashok Mohiley, learned counsel for other respondents.