JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. These appeals are directed against order dated 08.07.1999 of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to release their land.

2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts from the record of Civil Appeal No.2985 of 2001.

3. The appellants are said to be the owners of land measuring 14 Bighas 11 Biswas comprised in field Nos.595, 596, 599, 600, 603, 606, 619, 632 and 633 of village Gaujaini. By Notification dated 25.7.1959 issued under Section 53 of the Cawnpore Urban Area Development Act, 1945 (for short, 'the 1945 Act'), the competent authority notified the framing of Kalyanpur Panki Pandu Town Expansion and Green Belt Scheme No.40 (for short, 'the scheme'). The State Government sanctioned the scheme in December, 1959 and to this effect, Notification dated 23.12.1959 was issued under Section 60 of the 1945 Act.

4. With the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (for short, 'the 1959 Act'), Chapters II to XXV of which were brought into force on 1.2.1960, the 1945 Act stood repealed. However, the schemes framed under that Act were continued by Section 577 of the 1959 Act. The competent authority passed award dated 31.7.1967 in respect of 265.75 acres land including land belonging to the appellants and the amount of compensation was paid to the appellants, which they accepted without any ostensible protest.

5. After almost thirty years, the appellants filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.18779/1996 and prayed for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to release their land by asserting that possession thereof was still with them and the same has not been utilised for the purpose specified in Notifications dated 25.7.1959 and 23.12.1959.

6. Similarly, land belonging to Ram Narain Shukla and another (appellants in Civil Appeal No.2886 of 2001) was included in the scheme. They also filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.8539/1996 and prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to release their land by asserting that the scheme had not been executed and possession of the land was still with them.

7. The Division Bench of the High Court adverted to the grounds on which the appellants had prayed for release of their land, the counter affidavit filed by Shri R.S.Khare on behalf of Kanpur Development Authority wherein the deponent stated that the writ petitioners had received the compensation and physical possession of the acquired land had been taken long ago and held that once the petitioners' land had been acquired and possession thereof was taken by the competent authority, an order for release cannot be passed by entertaining the petitions filed after 30 years more so because a portion thereof had been transferred to U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') and the latter had developed the same and allotted plots to industrial entrepreneurs.

8. Mrs. Rachna Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside because the High Court did not consider her clients prayer in a correct perspective. She emphasised that land of the appellants had not been utilised for the scheme framed in 1959 and the High Court committed grave error by non-suiting them on the grounds of delay and acceptance of the compensation. Learned counsel submitted that the appellants had no occasion to challenge the notifications issued under the 1945 Act till 1995 when a portion of the acquired land was transferred to the Corporation. She then argued that the scheme framed under the 1945 Act will be deemed to have lapsed because the same was not implemented for more than three decades and by virtue of proviso to Section 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (for short, 'the 1973 Act'), the petitioners are entitled to seek release of the acquired land.

9. Shri Pradeep Mishra, le