MANGAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are claiming compensation under Section 17(3-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The assertion is that in respect of the disputed plots the State Government issued notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said notifications it was also declared that in view of the urgency of the matter the provisions of Section 5-A are being dispensed with. It was further directed in accordance with Section 17(1) of the Act that because of the urgency the Collector may, on the expiry of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9(1), take possession of the land in dispute needed for the declared public purpose, even though no award had been made. The allegation is that after the aforesaid notices the Collector took possession from the petitioners and indeed some constructions were also started in pursuance thereof. The petitioners were, however, not paid the compensation which was mandatory under Section 17(3-A) of the Act.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed refuting these allegations. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that the amount of compensation was in fact offered to the petitioners but the petitioners themselves did not collect the same on the ground that the same was inadequate. The result was that the whole process was delayed and no award could be made under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of declaration. Consequently the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land lapsed.

(3.) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed reiterating that possession was in fact taken from the petitioners and the name of respondent No. 4 was also mutated in the revenue records consequent thereto.