DEVINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order we propose to decide three connected Civil Writ Petitions bearing No. 14804 of 1998, 14903 of 1998 and 14892 of 1998 as the common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions. As agreed between both the parties, the facts have been extracted from CWP No. 14804 of 1998.

(2.) Devinder Kumar and 56 others through present petition filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) dated 31.1.1992 (Annexure P-1) as also follow up declaration that came to be issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 31.1.1992 (Annexure P-2) on the only ground that the Land Acquisition Collector has not made the award in the time stipulated and therefore notifications, Award and all subsequent proceedings have lapsed by virtue of provisions of Section 11-A, of the Act. As projected in the petition, it is the case of the petitioners that even though notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued on 31.1.1992 and 29.1.1993 respectively and the Collector had not made the Award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and therefore, the entire proceedings stand lapsed under Section 11 A of the Act. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in CWP 4433 of 1996 (Annexure P-4A dated 11.8.1997 vide which the very notifications as are involved in the present case were quashed in the case referred to above. The short order relied upon by the petitioner Annexure P-4A reads as follows:-

(3.) Mr. Ashok Aggarwal Senior Advocate with Mrs. Lisa Gill, Advocate, who appears for the respondents seriously contests the claim of the petitioners. He contends that so far order in CWP 4433 of 1996 dated 11.8.1997 is concerned, the same came to be passed on concession of the Counsel then representing the respondents where even written statement had not been filed. According to him, there was a stay obtained by the present petitioners and others in CWP No. 2126 of 1995 which was granted on 24.11.1993 and continued upto 22.9.1995. Some other petitioners by way of yet another petition bearing No. C.W.P. 10297 of 1997 obtained stay on 22.7.1997 which continued upto 4.8.1998. Before we might proceed in the matter, we would like to mention that if the two periods stated above from 24.11.1993 to 22.9.1995 and 22.7.1997 to 28.4.1998 are excluded in computing the limitation of two years, concededly the land acquisition proceedings would not lapse. With this background, time is now ripe to assess the contentions raised by the learned Counsel representing the parties.