SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for declaring that the proceedings for acquisition of plot Nos. 2256, 2256/1, 2257, 2259, 2264, 2266, 2269, 2270 and 2272 of village MaWana, Pargana and Tehsil Hastinapur, District Meerut initiated In pursuance of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act dated 30.9.1989 stood lapsed under Section 11 of the Act. The challenge is on the ground that the award was not made within a period of two years from the date of issue of notification under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act (in short 'Act'). The petitioners have also prayed for issue of writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from taking over possession of the disputed plots.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of resolving present controversy are that a notification for acquiring disputed land was issued under Section 4 of the Act on 30.9.1989. The acquisition was notified for construction of new market yard of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Mawana, District Meerut, (in short 'Mandi Samiti') under planned development scheme. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 24.9.1990 before any notice could be served on petitioners under Section 9. The 'Mandi Samiti', feeling aggrieved by the estimated value of land filed a writ petition Number 339 of 1992, as compensation was to be paid by it. An interim order was passed in that petition on 12.10.1992 whereby the Special Land Acquisition Officer was restrained from making award under Section 11 of the Act. Subsequently, the writ petition of 'Mandi Samiti' was dismissed as withdrawn on 3.3.1998. It is admitted case of the parties that during pendency of mat writ petition a notice under Section 9(3) of the Act was issued indicating therein that after expiry of 15 days the possession shall be taken over According to 'Mandi Samiti' the possession was taken over on 2.6.1998,- which has been disputed by petitioners. The petitioners' claim that they are still in possession It is not in dispute that the amount of 80 per cent of estimated value of land sought to be acquired, which was to be paid to petitioners at the time of delivery of possession, was deposited by 'Mandi Samiti' on 4.6.1998. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by 'Mandi Samiti' in which it has been stated that the award under Section 11 has been made on 22.8.1998. As the petitioners considered that they are going to be dispossessed contrary to law, they filed this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for petitioners argued that as award under Section 11 was not made within a period of two years from the date of issue of notification under Section 6 of the Act, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land in question lapsed. The case set up in the counter affidavit by the 'Mandi Samiti' and by Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) Meerut is that the possession .was taken over on 2 6 1998 The learned Counsel for petitioners argued that the delivery of possession set up by 'Mandi Samiti' was not in accordance with law and, therefore, the rights of petitioners did not come to an end on the basis of alleged delivery of possession. He contended that as 'Dakhalnama' (Certificate of delivery of possession) relied upon has not been signed by two witnesses, the said delivery of possession has no legal sanctity Counsel for 'Mandi Samiti', Mr. B D Mandhyan, Advocate, opposed the argument and contended that as notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued before the expiry of period of two years, the land stood vested in 'Mandi Samiti' and, therefore, the acquisition proceeding did not lapse under Section 11-A merely because award was not given within a period of two years from the date of issue of notification under Section 6. In alternative he contended mat as it was a case of urgency and Section 17(1} of the Act has been invoked in acquiring the land, therefore, also, Section 11- A is not attracted. He relied upon certain Supreme Court cases in support of his con- tention, which will be dealt with at proper place. Lastly, he argued that even if the proceedings for acquisition lapsed still as the 'Mandi Samiti' has been delivered possession and award has been made under Section 11 of the Act on 22.8.1998, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The contention is that rights of tenure holders stood vested in the 'Mandi Samiti' as soon as possession was taken over and no relief can be given to petitioners in this petition. Similar arguments have been advanced by learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State.