O R D E R

R. V. RAVEENDRAN J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Certain lands in village Sarai Badli and Ibrahimpur, Danda, Pargana Kora, District Fatehpur, UP, were acquired for construction of a six Kilometre road from Jahanabad to Garhi Jafraganj in the year 1982 and compensation was paid to the land owners in the year 1983.

3. In the year 1996, the appellant submitted a complaint to the Lokayukta alleging that his plots (bearing No.87/5, 88, 90, and 232 in Sarai Badli and plot No.580/5 and 602/1 in Ibrahimpur Danda) were included in the said acquisition; that in 1995 when he got his other lands measured, he found that his plots bearing Nos.27, 57, 58, 450, 451 and 452 (new numbers 103, 90, 93/1, 232/2, 231/2 and 229/5) measuring 0.7068 Hectare had been illegally and unauthorisedly used for constructing the road. On enquiry by the Lok Ayukta, the Addl. District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) informed that there was a possibility of the acquired lands being left out and the road being constructed in the adjoining lands which were not acquired. On the other hand, the concerned Executive Engineer, PWD, informed the Lok Ayukta that the Khasra numbers in respect of which the appellant alleged encroachment and claimed compensation had never stood in his name and that even for the lands acquired in 1982, the compensation was paid to Mohammed Hussain alias Bhola and others and not to the appellant. The said complaint was however closed on 7.9.1999 as time barred, in view of the delay of 12 years in seeking relief. Thereafter, the appellant approached the High Court in the year 2000 seeking a direction to the respondents to pay compensation in regard to the extra land used and occupied by respondents by diverting the road from its original alignment. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 9.7.2007 on the ground that petitioner can have recourse to section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`Act' for short), if he wanted enhancement of compensation. The review petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on 22.2.2008. The said orders are challenged in these appeals by special leave.

4. The respondents deny any encroachment or unauthorized use. They point out on account of the inordinate delay in approaching the High Court, and the disputes/questions relating to identity of land, boundaries, title etc., the writ petition was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

5. The limited question that arises for our consideration is whether the High Court could have dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to acquire the land and pay compensation (on the ground that his land has been taken over without acquisition) by holding that the remedy lies under Section 18 of the Act. An application seeking reference to court under Section 18 of the Act would lie only where the land-holder is aggrieved by the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector in regard to land acquired under the provisions of the Act, either with reference to quantum of compensation, or the measurements of the land, or the persons shown as being entitled to compensation. An application under section 18 of the Act cannot be filed in regard to a land which was not acquired at all. The remedy of a land holder

whose land is taken without acquisition is either to file a civil suit for recovery of possession and/or for compensation, or approach the High Court by filing a writ petition if the action can be shown to be arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, biased, malafide or without the authority of law, and seek a direction that the land should be acquired in a manner known to law. The appellant has chosen to follow the second course. The High Court was not therefore, justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the remedy was under section 18 of the Act. The order of the High Court, which is v