ASA RAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners alleged that they are co-owners of plot Nos. 65/2, 68, 70 and 74 situate in village Nagla Battoo Yadgarpur, Tehsil and District Meerut, and contended that a notification under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued and published in the Gazette on 21.8.1985 indicating therein that the land was required for a public purpose, namely, for construction of residential buildings for the people of Meerut by the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut under a planned development scheme. The notification further stipulated that it was a case of urgency and the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act was applicable since the land was urgently required for the construction of buildings and therefore to eliminate the delay the provision of Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with. Subsequently, a declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17 (1) of the Act was issued and published in the Gazette on 28.8.1985 and the last declaration was made on 4.9.1985 wherein the provisions of Section 17 (1) was invoked directing the Collector, Meerut to take the possession of the land after the expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice under Section 9 (1) of the Act even though no Award under Section 11 had been made. It transpires that the aforesaid notification under Sections 4 and 6 was challenged by the father of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and by the remaining petitioners along with other tenure holders by means of Writ Petition No. 13352 of 1985, Lekhraj and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.. The said writ petition was entertained and an interim order dated 11.9.1985 was passed directing the respondents not to dispossess the writ petitioners from the plots in dispute. The said writ petition was eventually dismissed vide judgment dated 17.7.1992 in which it was held that the urgency clause under Sections 17 (4) and 17 (1) of the Act was rightly invoked and the provisions of Section 5A of the Act was rightly dispensed with. The Court while dismissing the writ petition gave the following directions :

(2.) It is clear from the aforesaid decision that the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the representation by the Meerut Development Authority as well as by the Government.

(3.) The petitioners alleged that after the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition they made a representation to the Meerut Development Authority, which was rejected on 2.2.1994 and since the petitioners did not make any further representation to the State Government the order to status quo passed by the Court vide its judgment dated 17.7.1992 came to an end on 2.2.1994, when the representation of the petitioners was rejected by the Meerut Development Authority. The petitioners alleged that in the period of stay of dispossession granted by the High Court was excluded and the period of two years was computed, the award should have been made or the possession of the land should have been taken on or before 24.1.1996. Since the award under Section 11 was not made till 24.1.1996 nor possession of the land was taken, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed by virtue of Section 11A of the Act.