Relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted.

ORDER SUJOY PAUL, J. – In these batch of Writ Appeals challenge is made to the common order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No. 3250/2017 and other connected matters decided on 2nd November, 2020 whereby the petitions filed by the petitioners/appellants were dismissed. It was held that land acquisition proceedings have not at all lapsed, even if the petitioners have not received the compensation. A specific finding was given in the impugned order that in the present cases, compensation was deposited with the land acquisition officer and the question of granting relief to the petitioners, especially in the light of the fact that entire project is complete does not arise. The liberty was reserved to the petitioners to receive compensation in accordance with law if not received so far.

2. Shri K. L. Hardia, learned counsel for appellants contended that notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “Act of 1894”) was defective. The said notification was issued on 16-2-2007 whereas notification under section 6 of the said Act was issued on 9-2-2007. By no stretch of imagination, section 4 Notification can be issued after issuance of section 6 notification. The award passed on 7-3-2009 is liable to be interfered with on this score alone.

3. It is noteworthy that this matter was heard for quite some time on 18-3-2021. Because of paucity of time, to conclude the hearing, with the consent of parties, matter was taken up on 22-3-2021. An amendment application IA No. 2749/2021 was filed by Shri Hardia seeking amendment at appellate stage. We are not inclined to entertain amendment application filed at the midst of hearing. More so when the facts and pleadings mentioned in the amendment application are based on factual matrix which were already known to the present appellants during writ proceedings. The appellants did not file amendment application before the writ Court and filed this application at appellate stage. In absence of showing any “due diligence” for not filing application at appropriate stage, we find no reason to entertain this application.

4. Shri Hardia, learned counsel submits that the defects in the acquisition proceedings were brought to the notice of learned Single Judge. However, there is no iota of discussion regarding the flaw relating to issuance of section 4 and section 6 notification. The written submissions filed by the appellants were also not considered by learned Writ Court. A specific ground was taken regarding illegality of acquisition proceedings in the rejoinder which were also not considered by learned Single Judge.

5. To bolster aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for appellants placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in Kunwar Pal Singh (dead) by L.Rs vs. State of U. P. and ors., Amarnath Ashram Trust Society and another vs. Governor of Uttar Pradesh and ors., AIR 1998 SC 477, Chaitram Verma and ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur 1994 JLJ 96, Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana and ors., (2012) 1 SCC 792 and Sunita Agrawal vs. Bhanwarlal and another passed in CA No. 301/2021 passed on 1-2-2021.

6. It is contended that in the teeth of sub section 2 of section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “Act of 2013”) the land acquisition proceedings stood lapsed. The respondents have neither paid the compensation to the present appellants nor taken the possession. Hence, by operation of sub-section (2) of section 24 of Act of 2013 the award became a nullity. Lastly, it is submitted that respondent No. 6 being a beneficiary has no locus standi to oppose the present appellants.

7. Per contra, Ms. Archana Kher, learned Dy. A. G and Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 supported the impugned order. It is common ground that in view of limited relief claimed in the writ petition, no fault can be found in the impugned order. Appellant cannot b