R K MALIK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants/petitioners R. K. Malik and others have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the impugned order, dated 14th May, 1993 (contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the Land Acquisition Directorate, Lucknow.

(2.) SHORT facts leading to this petition lie in narrow compass and they are as under:

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that this petitioner deserves to be allowed. In Satyendra Prasad Jain an 1 others v. State of U. P. and Ors, JT 1993 (5) SC 385 : 1995 (2) JCLR 132 (All), their Lordships of apex Court have ruled (vide paras 16 and 17 of the judgment) as under: "16. Further, Section 17 (3-A) postulates that the owner will be offered an amount equivalent to 80% of the estimated compensa tion for the land before the Government takes possession of it under Section 17 (1 ). Section 11-A cannot be so construed as to leave the Government holding title to the land without the obligation to determine compensation, make an award and pay to the owner the dif ference between the amount of the award and the amount of 80% of the estimated compensa tion. " "17. In the instant case, even that 80% of the estimated compensation was not paid to the appellants although Section 17 (3-A) required that it should have been paid before possession of the said land was taken but that does not mean that the possession was taken illegally or that the said land did not thereupon vest in the 1st respondent. It is, at any rate not open to the third respondent, who, as the letter of the Spe cial Land Acquisition Officer, dated 27th June, 1990 shows, failed to make the necessary monies available and who has been in occupa tion of the said land ever since its possession was taken illegally and that, therefore, the said land has not vested in the first respondent and the first respondent is under no obligation to make an award. "