KAMLA PANDEY Vs. COLLECTOR AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties having exchanged affidavits, the petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) THE petitioner who claims to be the owner of plot no. 243 situate in village Bhograj, district Agra, has claimed the relief of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore possession of the said plot to the petitioner. THE essential facts are that on 18-5-78 the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of a large number of plots including, inter alia, plot no. 243. THE public purpose disclosed was the implementation of a housing scheme called 'Shamshabad Marg Grab Nirman Yojna'. Objections were invited under section 5-A of the aforesaid Act in pursuance of which the petitioner also filed an objection requesting that the land be exempted from acquisition proceedings. It is alleged that out of the total area of 1 Bigha 14 Biswas the authorities agreed to exempt 4 Biswas of the land retaining the rest of the area, namely, 1 bigha 10 biswas. After the disposal of the objections under section 5-A the Government issued a declaration under section 6 on 5-8-1980 and in pursuance of the same possession was also taken by the collector and delivered to the Agra Development Authority on 28-10-1980. It is also borne out by the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents that in enforcement of the Scheme a large number of houses were constructed by the Development Authority over the acquired land including plot no. 243 belonging to the petitioner. In course of time, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, made an award which was published on 19-3-1985 in respect of the plots acquired in pursuance of the aforesaid notifications. In regard to some of the plots including that of the petitioner, namely, 243, however, the Special Land Acquisition Officer deferred the determination of the compensation on the ground that the matter regarding the exemption of these plots from acquisition was pending before the State Government.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot be granted the aforesaid relief. As noticed above, the Special Land Acquisition Officer did make an award in respect of the land acquired by the Government except seme plots including that of the petitioner in March 1985, i. e. within two years of 24-9-84 the date of the commencement of the aforesaid Amending Act. The only omission was that the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not determine the compensation regarding the petitioner's plot on the ground that the question whether this plot along with some other plots should be exempted from acquisition was pending consideration before the State Government.