Seeking quashing of the entire land acquisition process in the light of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and for a direction to the respondents to start fresh acquisition process and to provide the benefits under Section 41 of the 2013 Act, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, for acquisition of 123.67 acres of land in village-Tandwa, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 06.05.2006. The petitioner's father purchased land comprised in Khata No.100, R.S. Plot Nos.400 and 492, measuring 0.56 acre from one Tekni Devi by registered sale-deed on 20.06.1973. Similarly, mother of the petitioner purchased 0.051 acre of land from Ashni Devi and Tekni Devi by registered deeds of sale on 08.02.1974. It is stated that the petitioner's parents are in lawful possession over 1.07 acres of land in Mouza-Nayeparam of P.S. Tandwa and they are paying rent to the State Government. The respondent nos.6 and 7 tampered the record and claimed compensation in respect of the said land belonging to the parents of the petitioner and therefore, on 30.04.2003 a representation was made to the District Land Acquisition Officer. Since, neither the compensation has been paid to the petitioner's parents nor possession of 1.07 acres of land belonging to them has been taken, the petitioner has sought a declaration in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to judgment in “Bimla Devi Vs. State of Haryana”, (2014) 6 SCC 583 & 586 and in “Velaxan Kumar Vs. Union of India and others”, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 52 and “Union of India & Ors. Vs. Shiv Raj & Others”, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 564, submits that in view of the mandate under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the acquisition with respect to 1.07 acres of land belonging to the petitioner's parents has lapsed. It is further submitted that though the respondents claim to have taken possession of the said land, admittedly no Punchnama was prepared evidencing taking over possession of the said land and therefore, the plea taken by the respondents is liable to be rejected.

4. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NTPC refers to Certificate of Possession (Form17) and submits that NTPC has been given possession by the District Land Acquisition Officer on 29.08.2009. Compensation for the land in question was deposited and it was received by the respondent nos.6 and 7 against whom, a certificate proceeding for recovering of the compensation amount has been started. It is submitted that the petitioner during the acquisition process never raised any objection before the authority. The respondent-NTPC has already floated tender and awarded work to M/s. A.C.M.E. for the construction of pillars around the acquired land.

5. Before considering the rival submissions, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “M/s Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others” in Civil Appeal No. 5054 of 2008, has to be kept in mind. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus,

2. “ Each and every deeming operation under Section 24(2) requires unambiguously and unvaryingly that a factual conclusion be drawn about the passing of the Award under Section 11, of the 1894 Act, on or before 01.01.2009; further, the absence of compensation having been paid or the absence of possession having been taken by the acquirer, either of these, must be a proven point of fact, as a threshold requirement attracting the lapse.”

6. Though the petitioner has claimed possession over the land in question and he has filed three supplementary-affidavits bringing on record photographs to support his claim that his parents are in possession of the land in question however, the petitioner