ORDER

1. This petition is filed on the ground that certain land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1991 when notice for acquiring land under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act of 1894') was issued.

2. Petitioner's contention is that though the land was acquired, no compensation was paid to him and therefore, 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 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2013"), the proceedings stand lapsed and therefore, there are only two options to the State either to initiate fresh proceedings or to return the land pertaining to the present petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the State Shri Harpreet Singh Ruprah along with the Collector, Rewa present in person, submits that the land was purchased by the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 4.7.1986. Notice under section 4 of Act of 1894 was issued on 10.5.1991. Thereafter notice was given under section 9 (3) of the Act of 1894 on 20.9.1991. On 15.10.1991, the petitioner appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and filed reply along with 'vakalatnama'. Final award was passed on 7.6.1993. This award was challenged by the petitioner by filing MP No.2559/1993. Thereafter, certain amendments were carried out.

4. Shri Harpreet Singh Ruprah submits that on 12.8.1993, a notice was issued as enclosed by him along with I.A. No.178/2025 filed on 8.1.2025. However, Shri Ruprah fairly admits that this notice (Annexure AR-1) was never served on the petitioner. When this Court asked the Government to show from the original dispatch register that they had sent the notice enclosed along with IA. No.178/2025 as Annexure AR-1, then instead of producing copy of the dispatch register, learned Additional Advocate General has tried to produce some documents which are admittedly not copy of dispatch register.

5. Though Shri Ruprah has taken a plea that he along with the Collector, Rewa worked for the whole night and some more time be granted to them to work out finer details. But the fact of the matter is that this case is pending since 2015. Land was acquired in the year 1993. Therefore, the petitioner is at receiving end for over thirty years. Hence, prayer of Shri Ruprah to grant more time is rejected. Even otherwise the Collector was directed to remain present along with all the original record. If Collector fails to produce original record to the learned Additional Advocate General then the State is to be blamed and no indulgence can be shown by further extending the time allowing the Collector and the State to further oppress the litigant.

6. Shri Ruprah further submits that on 19.8.1993, High Court passed stay order regarding not dispossessing the petitioner in MP No.2559/1993. Thereafter amendment application I.A. No.7280/1993 was filed, which was allowed and thereafter admittedly MP No.2559/1993 was dismissed vide order dated 25.6.2002. It is submitted that thereafter on 30.8.2002, possession was given by Tahsildar to the Executive Engineer of the MP Housing Board vide Annexure R-1 filed along with I.A. No.10428/2015 and there is no mention of constructed house over Khasra No.493 which was acquired from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner too has produced property tax receipt from 2013 onwards which demonstrate construction in the year 1993 or 2002. It is submitted that on 20.3.2008, the land was mutated in the name of MP Housing Board. On 7.5.2015, MP Housing Board issued notices to the petitioner for vacating the land. Then the petitioner filed this writ petition suppressing the fact that earlier MP No.2559/1993 which was filed on the same issue, was already dismissed. It is submitted that this Court was pleased to grant interim order of status quo with regard to possession as well as demolition. Thus, it is submitted that since the petitioner has not approached this Cou