ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed challenging award dated 27.1.1968, Annexure P-6, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Bhopal with the powers of the Collector under section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act in Case No.8/LA/66-67 (The Principal Regional College of Education, Bhopal v. Bhoora s/o Chhotreram and Others, Residents and Cultivators of Village Berkhedi Kalan, Tehsil Hazur and Another).

2. It is submitted that a notification was issued on 8.11.1965, Principal, Regional College of Education, Shimla Hills, Bhopal had requested the Government of Madhya Pradesh to acquire 71.20 acres of private land of Village Sivaniya Gond and village Barkhedi and to transfer government lands measuring 84.39 acres for their agriculture farm.

3. The Government of Madhya Pradesh vide memo dated 19.11.1965 asked the Collector to send proposals for acquisition of private lands.

4. After conduct of preliminary enquiry, Collector had sent a proposal to the Government of Madhya Pradesh to acquire 65.51 acres of private land of village Sewaniya Gond (41.64 acres) and Berkhedi Kalan (23.87 acres) for the purpose cited above.

5. A notification under section 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 18.10.1966 which was published in Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra Part-I dated 30.12.1966 to acquire the land of both the villages measuring 65.51 acres.

6. Since possession of the land was urgently required, therefore, provisions of Section 17 were applied and an enquiry under section 5-A was waived. A declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 1.2.1967 which was published on 4.8.1967 and thereafter impugned award was passed. Reading from the award it is pointed out that on the internal page of the award it is mentioned that possession over the land of Bhoora and Others could not be taken as the land was brought under cultivation and crop was standing. It is submitted that it was mentioned in the award itself that now the possession will be taken over as soon as the Rubi Crops standing on the lands are harvested, and delivered to the Principal.

7. Reading from this award it is submitted that possession of the land in question which was acquired from the predecessors of the petitioners was never taken and they were in cultivating possession of the said land till year 2016-17.

8. To buttress his claim attention is drawn to the communication which was made by the Administrative Officer of the respondent No.4 Institute to the SHO, Police Station Ratibad, Bhopal to point out that this communication dated 21.5.2017 is a direct testimony of the fact that petitioners were in possession of the said land till 2017.

9. Placing reliance on these facts it is submitted that in terms of the provisions contained in section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, since physical possession of the land was not taken, therefore, the proceedings are deemed to have lapsed and thus petitioners are entitled to get back their land. It is submitted that petitioners belong to under privilege section of the society. They are in fact members of the Scheduled Caste category and they could not have been divested of their land.

10. It is further submitted that in fact the land which was acquired for respondent No.4 was never put to any use, inasmuch as, Barkatullah University to which respondent No.4 is affiliated never runs any course in agriculture and no student has taken admission in the course of agriculture for over so many years. It is submitted that though respondents have filed certain curriculum along with their return as Annexure R-4/8 but till date they have not given admission to any student and, therefore, the purpose for which land was acquired has lapsed and thus land should be return back to the petitioners.

11. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. Reading from para 4, 5, 12, 53, 54, 55 and