Failure of the Land Acquisition Collector to deposit the compensation within two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, results in the lapse of the acquisition proceedings.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

1. This order will dispose of CWP Nos. 12471 and 12564 of 1989. The primary grievance of the petitioners in these two cases is that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was neither paid nor deposited and as such the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed. A few facts as emanating from CWP No. 12471 of 1989 may be noticed.

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm having a stone crusher in the revenue estate of village Maheshpur (Panchkula), district Ambala. It is averred that the petitioner has been carrying on the business of stone crushing since the year 1970 on a plot of land measuring 8 Kanal and 2 marlas It is further averred that even though this land had been taken initially on lease, the petitioner had actually purchased it on May 8, 1974. On June 6, 1983, the State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 proposing to acquire , 00,71 acres of land in village Maheshpur for the public purpose of developing a residential area. A copy of this notification has been produced on record as Annexure P-1. On June 27, 1984, the notification under Section 6 declaring that an area measuring 194.92 acres of land was required for the public purpose notified on June 6, 1988, was issued. The award in respect of an area measuring 154.44 acres was made by respondent No. 2 on September 17, 1986. A copy of the award has been produced on record as Annexure P-3. It is-averred that even the meagre amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was neither offered nor deposited for more than 2 years and as a result the petitioner was constrained to file CWP No. 1103 of 1980 praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the compensation. Even at that stage instead of making the payment of the amount claimed by the petitioner, the respondents had chosen to contest the petition. Averring that the amount of compensation as assessed under Section 11 having not been deposited and no payment having been actually made to the petitioner, the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of notification under Sections 4 & 6 (Annexures P. 1 & P. 2)

3. The written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 It has been inter-alia averred that the award was given on September 17, 1986 and the writ petition filed in the year 1989 was, highly belated. It has been further averred that the compensation in respect of the land was properly assessed and the petitioner had sought a reference under Section 18. The respondent maintained that after making the award "the petitioner was asked to take the payment from the office of respondent No. 2, but the petitioner has not turned up to take the money till today ..." The specific averment in para 5 of the writ petition that the amount of compensation was not deposited as a revenue deposit inspite of the provisions of Section 31 has not been controverted. Still further the averment in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the respondents have never demanded possession of the acquired land from the petitioner, although more than 3 years have expired, after the award was made and more than six years have expired from the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act" has also not been controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent.

4. I have heard Mr. R. S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Nehra for the respondents. Mr. Mittal contends on the basis of the provisions contained in Sections 11, 11-A and 31 that it was incumbent upon the respondents to "deposit the amount of compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18" could have been submitted and that they having failed to do so, the entire proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed Mr. Nehra, appearing for the respondents, concedes that factually no deposit has been made by the Land Acquisition Collector He, however, contends that the petitioner could have approach