RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Akhilesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri G.P. Gupta for the respondent no.4.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed praying for declaring the impugned notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to be invalid and to quash the consequential award given by the respondents on the ground that the proceedings should be presumed to have lapsed in terms of Sec. 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the consequential award also would be a nullity as the petitioner, even though having been dispossessed in the year 2007 is entitled to regain the possession as the very same notification has been quashed by the High Court by the judgment dtd. 8/9/2010 in Writ Petition No. 41522 of 2007 as well as other connected petitions that has been upheld by the Apex Court as the special leave petition filed against the same has been dismissed on 2/5/2007. Copy of the said judgments are on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in the supplementary affidavit and the supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner to contend that not only the acquisition is invalid on account of the aforesaid facts but also in view of the provisions of Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The entire proceedings shall be deemed to have been lapsed as the amount of compensation as determined under the award has not been deposited in terms of Sec. 30(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.Thus a two fold argument has been advanced, firstly that the acquisition proceedings have already lapsed and since identical notification has been quashed, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and alternatively applying the provisions of 2013 Act, even if the acquisition subsists, the same shall be deemed to have lapsed as no compensation has been deposited, keeping in view, the law laid down in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Sukhbir Singh and Ors reported in (2016) 16 SCC 258.