ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent-in-person who is also a practising advocate.

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the Act ) was published on June 18, 1977 acquiring the large extent of land admeasuring 23 bighas and 19 biswas for Transport Nagar Scheme. Enquiry under Section 5(1) of the Act was dispensed with the exercise of the power under Section 17(1-A), as amended by the Legislature of the U.P. substituting the Act. Possession thereof was taken on November 2, 1977 and transferred to the Transport Nagar Scheme. Those lands stood vested in the State under Section 16 of the Act free from all encumbrances and stood transferred to the beneficiary.

The question that arises for consideration is: whether the High Court was right in passing the order dated December 15, 1993 and the order dated January 29, 1990 declaring that the acquisition proceedings by operation of Section 11-A, as amended by Act, 68 of 1984, stood lapsed and direction given for delivery of possession to the respondents would be in accordance with law? The controversy is no longer res integra. In Lt. Governor of H.P. v. Avinash Sharma1, this Court had laid down that once the lands stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances there is no question of divesting the land and re-vesting the land in the erstwhile owners. The only right the erstwhile owner has is as to the determination of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In view of the fact that there was inordinate delay in passing the award after the declaration under Section 6(1) was published, the Parliament in the Amendment Act introduced Section 11-A and directed that the Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration. If no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. Under the proviso, it was said that where the declaration has been published before the commencement of the Amendment Act, the award shall be made within a period of two years from the commencement of the Amendment Act. In the impugned judgment, it would appear that the learned Judges asked the counsel to verify whether the award came to be made within two years, as indicated. The counsel on verification had stated that the award was not made within two years from the commencement of the Amendment Act, namely, September 24, 1984. Consequently, the declaration was given that the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 stood lapsed. This question was examined by this Court in Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.2 and Awadh Bihari Yadav & Ors. etc. v. State of Bihar & Ors.3, and held that Section 11-A does not apply to cases of acquisitions under Section 17 where possession was already taken and the land stood vested in the State. The notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 do not lapse due to failure to make award within two years from the date of the declaration. The view of the High Court is erroneous in law.

It is no doubt true that there was no appeal filed against the said order except the one now filed with application for condonation of the delay. The question, therefore, is: whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law? As early as in 1971, this Court had held that once the lands stood vested in the State, the question of divesting and re-vesting the acquired land in the erstwhile owner did not arise. The Amendment Act has to be relied upon only in the pending proceedings. But once the possession was taken pursuant to the exercise of the power under Section 17(4) of the Act, the lands stood vested in the State under Section 16 free from all encumbrances. Thereby, the question of lapse of the proceedings of notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 does not arise. T