IMPORTANT POINT
Violation of section 11A vitiates acquisition proceedings.

Judgment

1. These appeals are directed against two separate but identical orders dated 20.2.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the acquisition of their land were dismissed by applying the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. (1993) 4 SCC 369 and Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (1995) 6 SCC 31.

2. In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 4(1) read with Sections 17(1), (1A) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), the State Government proposed the acquisition of land including 1.87 acres belonging to the appellants in C.A. No.2730/2005 and 1.91 acres belonging to the appellants in C.A. No.2732 of 2005 for Habibpura Housing Scheme of the Varanasi Development Authority (for short, 'the VDA'). Declaration under Section 6(1) was published in the Official Gazette dated 30.11.1981.

3. The appellants challenged the two notifications in CMWP No. 1769 of 1982 and CMWP No. 14885 of 1982. The first writ petition was dismissed in default on 10.9.1990 and the second writ petition was dismissed on merits on 18.11.1997.

4. Notwithstanding dismissal of the writ petitions, the respondents neither took possession of the acquired land nor any award was passed within the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Act. In the year 2000, the appellants filed CMWP Nos. 24326 and 23043 of 2000 respectively with the allegation that the respondents are seeking to dispossess them. They prayed for grant of a declaration that the acquisition proceedings will be deemed to have lapsed because the award was not passed within two years of coming into force of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. In paragraphs 12 to 15 of CMWP No. 24326 of 2000 Laxman Pandya and others v. State of U.P. and others, the following averments were made:

"12. That the respondents had full and complete knowledge of order dated 10.9.90 as the respondents including State Government were party in the writ petition. The writ petition having been dismissed on 10.9.1990 no proceedings were undertaken by the respondents even thereafter to either take possession of the land or deliver the award in respect of the property under acquisition. It is, therefore, clear that a period of more than nine and a half year was allowed to lapse by the respondents themselves and neither any possession was taken from the petitioner of the land in question nor any award was delivered in respect thereof. A photostat copy of Khatauni of 14504 to 1409 fasali is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure - 3 to the writ petition.

13. That on 10th May, 2000 certain officials of Varanasi Development Authority came at a adjoining plot of land which was also subject matter of acquisition from whom the petitioner came to know that now the Development Authority with the help of Collector, Varanasi will be proceeding to take possession of the land in question.

14. That no notice whatsoever of any kind had been made or issued to the petitioners but on account of the aforesaid facts the petitioners are now under direct threat of dispossession of the land in question, hence, this present writ petition.

15. That in view of the fact narrated hereinabove it is clear that the proceeding referred hereinabove will be deemed to have lapsed in view of the provisions contained in section 11-A of the Act and as such the respondents cannot now take possession of the land in question nor do they have any authority to proceed in the matter in any manner whatsoever."

5. In paragraphs 11 to 17 of CMWP No. 23043/2000 Atma Ram Dhindhania and others v. State of U.P. and others, the following averments were made:

"11. That it is also relevant to point that no award was made in respect of land in spite of the fact that the notification under Section 6 is dated 30.11.1981. the interim order, which was passed in favour of the petitioner, is dated 17.12.1982, thu