Point of Law: Acquisition of Land – Possession of land - Provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force.

JUDGMENT :

PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following relief:

“A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS or appropriate directions to issue commanding and/or set aside the order dated 12/11/2020 and directed to passed the fresh speaking order after having in the matter (Annexure no. 1).”

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directed to the respondent no. 1 to remitted back the possession as well as title of the land in question to its owner.

C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondent no. 1 to consider and passed appropriate order on the representation dated 19/02/2021 submitted by the petitioner expeditiously within a suitable period. (Annexure no. 16).

D. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondent no. 2 to consider and passed appropriate order on the representation dated 12/10/2020 under section 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 submitted by the petitioner expeditiously within a suitable period. (Annexure no. 17).”

2. The facts as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner and her husband, namely Inder Bir Singh Uppal has purchased certain land, including the land of Khata no. 310, Khasra no. 305M, area 020500 Bigha Pukhta i.e., 0.5580 Hectare situated in village Sadarpur, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. It is stated in the writ petition that the dispute in the present writ petition relates only with the land of Khata no. 310, Khasra no. 305M area 020500 Pukhta i.e. 0.5580 Hectare having old khasra nos. 429 & 504. It is further stated by the petitioner that after purchasing the aforesaid land, the petitioner has established a Girls School, in the name and style of Suman Girls Junior High School in the year 1997. In the year 2002, a notification dated 30.3.2002 under section 4(1) read with section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1894”) was issued. The said notification was published on 15.4.2002 in various newspapers. It is further stated in the writ petition that in view of the urgency clause invoked by the State Government, no objections were invited however the petitioner filed his objection that respondent authorities threatened to demolish the school building. Thereafter a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 20783 of 2002 was filed with a prayer to quash the notification dated 30.3.2002 and to restrain the respondents and their agents from demolishing the school building and taking the possession of the land. The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed off by the judgment and order dated 20.5.2002.

4. By the aforesaid order dated 20.5.2002 this Court has been pleased to order the State Government to decide the applications of the petitioner for exemption as provided under section 48 of Act of 1894. It is further stated that the aforesaid order was not complied with and the construction of school building was demolished. Thereafter a contempt petition being Contempt Petition No. 3431 of 2002 (Capt. Inder Veer Singh Uppal Vs. Hemant Rao and others) was filed before this Court and notice was issued to the opposite parties on 18.11.2003. In reply to the contempt notice, the reply was filed by the opposite parties enclosing letter dated 03.06.2002 and 25.07.2003. Thereafter the order dated 8.1.2004 passed by the Special Secretary was brought on record, by which the application of the petitioner was rejected and the finding was recorded that the possession of Khasra nos. 302, 305/2 & 306 has already been transferred to the Noida Development Authority on 3.9.2003. A further finding was recorded that there is no school building in the land in dispute. With these findings, the Special Secretary, rejected the application of the petitioner for release of his land from the acquisition. The said order is annexed as annexure9 to the writ pe