Point of Law:
Land Acquisition - Process of acquisition was completed way back in the year 1987-88. The petitioners have even received the compensation and did not raise any objection immediately thereafter. They cannot be permitted to challenge the acquisition three decades after the process of acquisition was completed.

ORDER :

RAJESH BINDAL, CJ.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners impugning the notice dated August 10, 2021 issued by U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) directing the petitioners to remove the unauthorized construction raised on the land which was already allotted to an industrial unit, otherwise action was to be taken against the petitioners in accordance with law. Further prayer has been made seeking a direction to the respondent no. 1 to decide the application filed by petitioners under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “1894 Act”).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land was sought to be acquired for the use by Corporation. Emergency provision of Section 17 of the 1894 Act were invoked. Notification under Section 6 was issued on April 15, 1986. Thereafter award was passed by Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as “LAO”). The possession of the land was never taken by the State. The petitioners have raised construction thereon where cow-shed and a school is running with about 400 students studying therein. The project for which the land was acquired has already been completed and the land in question is lying surplus.

3. He further referred to Section 17 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “1973 Act”) to state that in case acquired land is not utilized for a period of five years, the landowner can seek to return the same back to him. In the case in hand, for the last about three decades land in question has not been utilized, hence, petitioners have a right to get their land back. They are ready to deposit the compensation back.

4. Though not pleaded in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners also sought to invoke the provisions of Section 101 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act”) to submit that even in terms of the aforesaid provision, land in question deserves to be returned back to the petitioners as the land was not utilized within five years of acquisition. They will suffer irreparable loss. As regards allotment of the land to any other person, as has been mentioned in the show cause notice, the argument raised is that neither any lease-deed has been executed by the Corporation in favour of the allottee nor any construction has been raised by him, hence, otherwise also that allotment has to be cancelled.

5. He further submitted that provisions of Section 17 of the 1894 Act were wrongly invoked for the reason that acquisition in question was merely for development of an industrial estate. In support of the argument, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash and another Vs. State of U.P. and others (1998) 6 SCC 1.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioners do not have any right to claim that the land, which already stood acquired and for which the compensation has admittedly been received by the petitioners, be returned back to them. The acquisition proceedings having been completed, the petitioners do not have any right to invoke Section 48 of 1894 Act. The possession of the land was taken immediately after acquisition and handed over to the Corporation, which had even carved out plots and sold to number of allottees. Merely because on some portion of the land the petitioners have made certain construction after encroaching upon the same, will not entitle them to claim its release from acquisition.

7. The provisions of Section 17 of the 1973 Act will not come to the rescue the petitioners for the reason that the land in question was utilized immediately after acquisition as it was transferred to the Corporation. The development activities started immediately and the industrial estate was developed.

8. The provisions of Section 101 of the