Back
1998 Supreme(All) 894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BEERENDRA DIXIT, O. P. JAIN
SUSHIL KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 20241 Of 1998
Decided On : 08/18/1998
B.D.Mandhyan, PRAMOD JAIN
The acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act if the award is not made within two years from the date of issue of notification under Section 6.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - SECTION 4, 6, 9, 11, 11-A, 16, 17 - LAPSE OF ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - TAKING POSSESSION BEFORE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS - VESTING OF LAND IN STATE - DELIVERY OF POSSESSION - DAKHALNAMA - EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES - RESTORATION OF POSSESSION - FRESH ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Mandi Samiti for the construction of a new market yard. The petitioners argued that the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was not made within two years from the date of issue of notification under Section 6, and therefore, the proceedings lapsed under Section 11-A. The Mandi Samiti contended that possession was taken over before the expiry of the two-year period and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings did not lapse.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 11-A as the award was not made within two years from the date of issue of notification under Section 6. The court also held that the Mandi Samiti was not entitled to take possession of the land as the possession was not taken over before the expiry of the two-year period. The court further held that the dakhalnama relied upon by the Mandi Samiti was not executed in accordance with law and, therefore, the delivery of possession set up by the Mandi Samiti was not valid.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act? 2. Whether the Mandi Samiti was entitled to take possession of the land? 3. Whether the dakhalnama relied upon by the Mandi Samiti was executed in accordance with law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act provides that if the award is not made within two years from the date of issue of notification under Section 6, the acquisition proceedings shall lapse. In the present case, the award was not made within two years from the date of issue of notification under Section 6, and therefore, the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 11-A. 2. Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act provides that the State Government may take possession of the land after the expiry of 15 days from the date of service of notice under Section 9(3). In the present case, the possession was not taken over before the expiry of the two-year period, and therefore, the Mandi Samiti was not entitled to take possession of the land. 3. The dakhalnama relied upon by the Mandi Samiti was not signed by any witness, and therefore, it was not executed in accordance with law. Consequently, the delivery of possession set up by the Mandi Samiti was not valid.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the petitioners' land. The court also declared that the petitioners were entitled to obtain and retain possession of the land in dispute. The court further kept it open for the State Government to draw fresh acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners' land in accordance with law, if it still required.
( 1 ) BY this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for declaring that the proceedings for acquisition of plot Nos. 2256, 2256/1, 2257, 2259, 2264, 2266, 2269, 2270 and 2272 of village Mawana, Pargana and Tehsil Hastinapur, District Meerut initiated in pursuance of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act dated 30. 9. 1989 stood lapsed under Section 11 of the Act. The challenge is on the ground that the award was not made within a period of two years from the date of issue of notification under Section 6 of land Acquisition Act (in short act ). The petitioners have also prayed for issue of writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from taking over possession of the disputed plots.
( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the purpose of resolving present controversy are that a notification for acquiring disputed land was issued under Section 4 of the Act on 30. 9. 1989. The acquisition was notified for construction of new market yard of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti mawana, District Meerut, (in short mandi samiti) under planned development scheme. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 24. 9. 1990 before any notice could be served on petitioners under Section 9. The mandi Samiti, feeling aggrieved by the estimated value of land filed a writ petition number 339 of 1992, as compensation was to be paid by it. An interim order was passed in that petition on 12. 10. 1992 whereby the special Land Acquisition Officer was restrained from making award under Section 11 of the act. Subsequently, the writ petition of mandi samiti was dismissed as withdrawn on 3. 3. 1998. It is admitted case of the parties that during pendency of mat writ petition a notice under Section 9 (3) of the Act was issued indicating therein that after expiry of 15 days the possession shall be taken over According to mandi Samiti the possession was taken over on 2. 6. 1998,- which has been disputed by petitioners. The petitioners claim that they are still in possession It is not in dispute that the amount of 80 per cent of estimated value of land sought to be acquired, which was to be paid to petitioners at the time of delivery of possession, was deposited by mandi Samiti on 4. 6. 1998. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by mandi Samiti in which it has been stated that the award under Section 11 has been made on 22. 8. 1998. As the petitioners considered that they are going to be dispossessed contrary to law, they filed this petition.
( 3 ) THE learned counsel for petitioners argued that as award under Section 11 was not made within a period of two years from the date of issue of notification under Section 6 of the Act, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land in question lapsed. The case set up in the counter affidavit by the mandi samiti and by Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) Meerut is that the possession. was taken over on 2 6 1998 The learned counsel for petitioners argued that the delivery of possession set up by mandi Samiti was not in accordance with law and, therefore, the rights of petitioners did not come to an end on the basis of alleged delivery of possession. He contended that as dakhalnama (Certificate of delivery of possession) relied upon has not been signed by two witnesses, the said delivery of possession has no legal sanctity counsel for mandi Samiti, Mr. B D mandhyan, Advocate, opposed the argument and contended that as notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued before the expiry of period of two years, the land stood vested in mandi Samiti and, therefore, the acquisition proceeding did not lapse under Section 11-A merely because award was not given within a period of two years from the date of issue of notification under Section 6. In alternative he contended mat as it was a case of urgency and section 17 (1} of the Act has been invoked in acquiring the land, therefore, also, Section 11-a is not attracted. He relied upon certain supreme Court cases in support of h
