By the Court.—Satish Chandra Gupta, son of Shri Anant Bihari Lal Gupta is before this Court for quashing the award dated 22.9.1986 passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad-respondent No. 3. He has further prayed for direction commanding the respondents to release the land in dispute i.e. Survey Plot No. 101/1M area 0.0800 hec. situated in village Harwara, Tehsil Sadar, District Allahabad and not to interfere in his peaceful possession and occupation over the land in dispute.

2. The factual situation that is accepted before us is that the dispute relates to Survey Plot No. 102/1M area 0.0800 hec. situated in village Harwara, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Allahabad. The land in dispute initially belonged to Anant Bihari Lal Gupta-the father of the petitioner and he was the recorded tenure holder and in possession of the land in dispute. He executed a will deed dated 23.4.1978 by which the land in dispute was bequeathed in favour of the petitioner.

3. It appears from the record that the Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “ADA”) had sent a detailed proposal to the State Government that the land in dispute alongwith large tract of adjoining land was urgently required for planned development of Allahabad. Consequently, a notification under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 1894 Act) alongwith Section 17 (1) of the 1894 Act was issued on 28.4.1979. The same was published in official Gazette on 9.6.1979. Anant Bihari Lal Gupta died on 28.12.1980. Subsequently the State Government issued notification under Section 6 (1) of the 1894 Act on 26.5.1981, which was published in the official Gazette on 27.5.1981. Finally the award in question was also made on 22.9.1986. The award has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. As per the award it is reflected that the possession of the land in question had been taken by the Competent Authority way back on 1.9.1981/2.1.1984. It is claimed that upon the death of Anant Bihari Lal Gupta-father of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue record on 2.7.1994.

4. Shri Rajiv Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the possession of the land in dispute was never taken by respondent No. 3 i.e. ADA and the petitioner continued in possession of the land in dispute. He submits that the 1894 Act was repealed and under the Act No. 30 of 2013 i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, 2013 Act), now it covers the field of land acquisition, which also provides the methods and methodology to be followed in respect of acquisition under the Act of 1894. He has placed reliance upon Section 24 of the 2013 Act and submits that in view of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act the entire acquisition initiated by the ADA has lapsed and further alternatively prayed that the respondents are obliged to determine the compensation to be fixed as per provisions of the 2013 Act. Shri Rajiv Misra has placed reliance on judgments of Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Sonanki and others, 2014 (3) SCC 183. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced hereinafter :

“6. It is argued on behalf of the landowners that by virtue of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, the subject acquisition shall be deemed to have been lapsed because the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act is made more than five years prior to the commencement of 2013 Act and no compensation has been paid to the owners nor the amount of compensation has been deposited in the Court by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

7. On the other hand, on behalf of the Corporation and so also for the Collector, it is argued that the award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 31.1.2008 strictly in terms of 1894 Act and on the very day the landowners were informed regarding the quantum of compensa