VISHAL SAHAKARI AWAS SAMITI Vs. SECRETARY HOUSING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed raising a large number of disputed questions of fact claiming release of 50% of the land of the petitioner in Khasra No. 195 in village Mirzapur, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad, which had been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner claims to be a Registered Housing Society. A large area of land had been purchased by the said Society for the purpose of constructing the houses for its members but the State Government issued the notification under Section 4 of the Act on 11.6.1986 acquiring large area of land including that of the petitioner and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 16.6.1986 by resorting to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act dispensing with the enquiry under the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. The acquisition proceedings were challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 5996 of 1986 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. It is stated in the petition that the proceedings of land acquisition in respect of the land of the petitioner had been stayed by the Lucknow Bench but that writ petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 9.5.2001. The interim order passed therein came to an end automatically but the petitioner has filed an application for restoration of the said writ petition, which is still pending consideration before the Lucknow Bench. This writ petition has been filed for taking the benefit of the Government Order dated 2.6.1998 (Annexure '2' to the writ petition) by which the State Government provided that as far as possible the land belonging to the Housing Co-operative Societies should not be acquired where the land had been purchased prior to the issue of the notification under Section 4/17 of the Act or where the Society had executed Registered Deeds in favour of its members and where the land stood acquired, it should be released. Further, conditions have been imposed for making available the land to the extent of 60% as contained in Clause (3) of the said Government Order.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and S/Sri R.N. Singh, Ved Vyash Mishra and A.K. Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) There cannot be a dispute in law that upon possession being taken under Section 16 or 17 of the Act, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. In this connection reference may be made to the following decisions of the Supreme Court in Satendra Prasad Jain and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2517 and N.N. Chandrasdhuya v. State of W.B., AIR 2002 SC 2532.