JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 26.02.2020 passed on a representation made by the petitioner after a direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner has further prayed for determination of compensation as per Section 24(1)(a) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "Act of 2013").

3. The case has a checkered history, thus needs to be given in detail but before that, it is necessary to indicate that the acquisition process for the land in dispute was initiated by the respondents by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "Act of 1894") on 30.01.1989. The petitioner purchased the land on 25.04.1989 i.e. subsequent to the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.

4. The fact aforesaid is relevant in view of the law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and others Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 8003 of 2019 and connected appeal decided on 14.02.2019. It is held that purchaser of the land, after the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 has no right to challenge the acquisition.

5. The detailed facts relevant to the case are that after a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, notification under Sections 6 and 17 of the Act of 1894 were issued on 08.02.1990. The award thereupon was passed on 29.02.1992. A litigation in reference to the notification under Sections 6 and 17 of the Act of 1894 came before this Court and decided vide the judgment dated 20.08.1993. The notifications were interfered, though prior to it, award was passed on 29.02.1992. It was not challenged by amending the writ petition or by filing a fresh writ petition. The fact aforesaid is relevant for the reason that pursuant to the award, land of the petitioner was possessed for construction of 125 feet wide road. In the revenue record also name of the Agra Development Authority was recorded in place of the erstwhile land holders for 0.2400 hectare of land out of 2 Bigha 15 Biswa and 17 Biswansi of Gata No. 158. It is however a fact that subsequently again notification under Sections 6 and 17 was issued on 16.01.1995 but no award was passed within two years.

6. In the light of the aforesaid, the prayer of the petitioner in the representation was to treat the acquisition as lapsed. It is reflected in the impugned order and for that relevant portion is quoted hereunder:

^^bl ÁR;kosnu esa ;kph }kjk rktuxjh vkolh; ;kstuk ¼f}rh; pj.k½ esa vtZu ds varxZr Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e 1894 ds varxZr dh x;h dk;Zokgh dk o.kZu fd;k x;k gSA bl vtZu dh dk;Zokgh esa muds }kjk [kljk la[;k 158 fLFkr xzke pejkSyh rglhy o ftyk vkxjk dks bl ;kstuk esa 'kkfey crk;k x;k ijUrq mDr [kljk dk jdck@{ks=Qy vafdr ugha fd;k x;kA bl vtZu dh ÁfØ;k esa la'kksf/kr /kkjk 6¼1½@17 ds varxZr vf/klwpuk fnukad 16-01-1995 dks fuxZr fd;k tkuk o Hkw&vtZu ,DV 1894 dh /kkjk 11&, ds Ákfo/kku ds varxZr fo'ks"k Hkwfe v/;kfIr vf/kdkjh ¼uŒeŒikŒ½ vkxjk }kjk vokMZ ?kksf"kr u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k vtZu dh leLr dk;Zokgh dks O;ikxr crk;k x;kA bl dFku ds leFkZu esa muds }kjk mŒÁŒ 'kklu ds jktLo vuqHkkx 13 ds i= fnukad 01-09-2003 rFkk Áeq[k lfpo mRrj Áns'k ds vkns'k fnukad 26-07-2010 dk Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;kA**

7. The prayer to treat acquisition to have lapsed for the land used for construction of 125 feet wide road was not accepted. In absence of the lapse of the acquisition pursuant to the award, the compensation was not permitted under the Act of 2013. The relevant impugned portion of the order is quoted hereunder to show discussion:

^^mRrj Áns'k 'kklu ds jktLo vuqHkkx 13 ds vkns'k fnukad 01-09-2003 ls {kqC/k gksdj vkxjk fodkl Ákf/kdj.k vkxjk }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa flfoy fjV fiVh'ku la[;k 26588@2004 ¼vkxjk fodkl Ákf/kdj.k cuke mRrj Áns'k 'kklu o vU;½ ;ksftr dh x;h]