Point of Law: Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.

JUDGMENT :

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.

1. Heard Shri Anupam Kulshreshtha and Shri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel along with Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel as well as Shri Apurva Hajela, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4.

2. Present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-

“(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the land of plot no.424/1 area 1 bigha & 10 biswa and plot no.424/2 area 5 biswa, situated in Village Jhunsi Kohna, Pargana Jhunsi, Tehsil Phoolpur, Distt. Prayagraj from the acquisition as the acquisition proceedings, initiated vide notifications dated 8.3.1979 and 27.10.1980 under Sections 28 and 32 of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Praishad Adhiniyam, 1965 stand lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30 of 2013);

(b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute, namely; plot no.424/1 area 1 bigha & 10 biswa and plot no.424/2 area 5 biswa, situated in Village Jhunsi Kohna, Pargana Jhunsi, Tehsil Phoolpur Distt. Prayagraj in view of the fact that neither the compensation was paid nor possession was taken pursuant to the proceedings of acquisition, initiated vide notifications dated 8.3.1979/14.4.1979 and 27.10.1980/22.11.1980 under Sections 28 and 32 of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 stand lapsed;

(c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 3.9.2007 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition) and reminders dated 27.10.2007, 2.2.2008, 26.11.2008, 31.7.2013, 12.3.2013, 12.8.2013, 14.10.2013, 19.4.2017 and 4.7.2019 (Annexures No.9 to 16 of the writ petition) within a shortest possible time frame which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The record in question reflects that the petitioner claims to be Bhumidhar with transferable rights of plot no.424/1 area 1 bigha & 10 biswa and plot no.424/2 area 5 biswa situated in Village Jhunsi Kohna, Pargana Jhunsi, Tehsil Phoolpur Distt. Prayagraj, [the land in dispute]. A notification under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, [the Adhiniyam, 1965] was issued on 8.3.1979, which was published in the official gazette on 14.4.1979. The notification reflects that the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, [the Parishad] has framed a scheme in the name of “Jhunsi Bhoomi Vikas Evam Grih Sthan Yojna-2, Allahabad, [the Scheme]” for solving the housing problems in the city of Allahabad (now Prayagraj). Thereafter, a notice under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam, 1965 was issued. It is claimed that the petitioner along with her co-tenure holder Smt. Shanti Devi daughter of Girdhari Lal filed objection on 2.5.1979. A notification under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1965 was published in the Official Gazette on 29.11.1980. It is claimed that inspite of the objection dated 2.5.1979 finally the publication under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1965 was issued. It is also claimed that no opportunity or notice was ever accorded to the petitioner under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition, 1894, [the L.A. Act]. Therefore, the petitioner had no information relating to determination of the compensation under the LA Act. It is also reflected from the record that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by preferring Writ Petition No.18480 of 1987 with following reliefs:-

“(i) To issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice (Annexure 2' to the writ petition).

(ii) to iss