M.N. Bhandari, J.

1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the acquisition of land for which a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued followed by declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1984 and, finally, the award.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner-Luniyawas Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited submits that the lands in question was purchased under the agreement to sale. While issuing the notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894, name of the petitioner Society was not mentioned against the land sought to be acquired. They could know about acquisition of land thus submitted objections under section 5A of the Act. The objections were not dealt with by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the order under section 5A of the Act of 1984. The declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued by the respondents beyond the period of one year from the date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act. The declaration was thus illegal. The award has also been passed beyond the period of two years from the date of declaration thus even the final award is also hit by section 11A of the Act of 1894. In view of above, the declaration under section 6 as well as the award under section 11A of the Act of 1894 deserve to be set aside.

3. It is also submitted that after purchase of the land under agreement to sale, the colony was developed with allocation of plots to the members. The possession of the members of petitioner society exist on the land in question yet their objections under section 5A of the Act were not dealt with though it was mandatory. Taking into consideration the aforesaid also, impugned notification as well as the acquisition deserve to be set aside. Reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Eugenio Misquita & ors v. State of Goa & ors", AIR 1997 SC 3939 has been given apart from the judgment in the case of "Ashok Kumar & ors v. State of Haryana & anr", AIR 2007 SC 1411. In the cases referred to above, the Apex Court held that declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 should be made within a period of one year and limitation therein would be counted from the date of publication of the Notification under section 4 of the Act in the gazette. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Kamal Trading Private Limited (now known as Manav Investment and Trading Company Limited) v. State of West Bengal & ors", (2012)2 SCC 25 has also been referred on the issue of non-compliance of section 5A of the Act of 1894.

4. In the instant case, notification under section 4 was issued on 28.2.2008, whereas, declaration under section 6 has been made on 9.7.2009 i.e. beyond the period of one year thus the acquisition proceedings deserve to be set aside.

5. It is further submitted that the award was passed on 9.8.2011 and it was also beyond the period of two years of the declaration under section 6 of the Act thus entire acquisition vitiate.

6. Learned counsel for respondents have raised preliminary objections on locus of the petitioner-society. It is submitted that the land in dispute does not belong to the petitioner-society but to the khatedar, who was initially not impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition. An application was filed and khatedar was then impleaded as respondent.

7. The petitioner society is claiming right based on agreement to sale though as per provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, rights do not confer. It is more so when the khatedar had purchased the land in the year 2006, whereas, the agreement to sale with the petitioner is of the year 1996 i.e. prior to purchase of the land by the seller. The agreement to sale has no sanctity in the eye of law if the sale deed has not been executed.

8. It is also stated that khatedar has appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer while the objections under section 5A were heard followed by his participation in the subsequent proceedings. The respondent No.4 has agreed