By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred feeling aggrieved with the rejection of the application, moved by the petitioner under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, Act). A copy of the impugned order dated 3.6.2013 is annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.

3. A notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 was issued by the Government for acquisition of land in question with regard to Anand Vihar Residential Housing Scheme through Hapur-Pilkhua Development Authority. The notification was issued on 24.11.2005 and published in two newspapers on 25.11.2005 followed by corrigendum on 2.6.2006. Notification under Section 6(1) read with Section 17 was issued on 13.7.2006 with due publication in two newspapers, i.e. Dainik Zagran and Amar Uzala. According to the record, the possession was taken over on 11.7.2008 by making necessary entry in the relevant record. The petitioner possessed an agriculture industry in the name and title of M/s. Dhan Shree Agro Comp., Delhi Road, Hapur. According to the petitioner’s counsel, since the actual possession was not taken, he moved an application under Section 48 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved with inaction on the part of the competent authority, he filed a writ petition No. 19507 of 2012 which was decided by this Court directing the respondents to decide the application moved by the petitioner under Section 48 of the Act. In pursuance to the order, passed by this Court, by the impugned order dated 3.6.2013, the application moved by the petitioner has been rejected with the finding that the possession of the land in dispute, i.e khasa No. 501 was taken by the Additional District Magistrate, (Irrigation), Land Revenue, Ghaziabad on 11.7.2008 and transferred to Hapur Pilkhua Development Authority. The compensation has been deposited in the office of the Additional District Magistrate. It is the part and partial of Anand Vihar Housing Project. It is also recorded in the impugned order that the notification under Sections 4 and 6 was issued in 2005 and 2006 and possession has been delivered to Housing Development Authority in 2008.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the statutory award has already been delivered on 13.12.2013, i.e. after the filing of the present writ petition.

5. While assailing the impugned order, it is submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that the order itself contains factual position that though the possession on paper has been delivered to the Development Authority but it contains the petitioner’s factory relating to agriculture, tin shed, rooms, a hall, various trees, etc. The impugned order itself shows that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question. Operative portion of the impugned order is reproduced as under:

iz'uxr izdj.k esa vij ftykf/kdkjh Hkw&vè;kfIr flapkbZ }kjk miyC/k djk;h x;h v+|ru fLFkfr fol;d lwpuk fnukad 19&3&2013 esa mfYyf[kr rF;ksa ftlesa iz'uxr izkf/kdj.k dh vkuUn fogkj vkoklh; ;kstuk gsrq fd;k x;k gS] ftldh /kkjk&4¼1½@17 dh foKfIr fnukad 24&11&2005 o èkkjk& 6¼1½@17 dh foKfIr fnukad 13&7&2006 esa tkjh gksus ij Hkw&vtZu dh leLr vkSipkfjdrk,a iw.kZ gksus ds i'pkr fnukad 11&7&2008 esa mDr Hkwfe dk vtZu fudk; dks dCtk gLrxr fd;k tk pqdk gS A ekSds ij ,d QSDV‘h ,xzhdYpj dh ftlesa 1 gky e; ysUVj ds] 1 dejk ,oa 1 Vhu 'kSM dk gky] 3 lkxkSu] 3 vke] 2 ve:n] 3 ikiqyj] 2 uhe] 2 cdkan gS] ekSds ij lEcfUèkr Hkw&Lokeh dkfct gS A jktLo vfHkys[ksak esa o’kZ 1974 ij mDr uEcj ij vkcknh ntZ pyh vk jgh gS A bl ;kstuk esa djkj fu;ekoyh] 1997 ds varxZr izHkkfor Hkw&Lokfeksa dks izfrdj Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gS] ijUrq buds }kjk djkj i= ugh Hkjus ij izfrdj Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k gSA iz'uxr izdj.k esa vHkh vfHkfu.kZ; ?kksf"kr ugha gqvk gS A

6. The survey report filed with the counter-affidavit also contains that the petitioner is in possession of the land in questio