The failure to take possession within the prescribed period can lead to the withdrawal or abandonment of acquisition proceedings, and executive instructions cannot abridge statutory provisions.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 4.3.1994 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents challenging the acquisition of their land was allowed.

2. The brief facts out of which present appeal arises is that land measuring 693 Kanals 7 Marias situated in village Jamalpur Awana, originally entered in the name Gram Panchayat, was allotted to Yusaf and Ali sons of Darda as evacuee land vide letter of allotment dated 18.12.1969. Another area measuring 239 Kanals 10 Marias situated in village Kuliwal was also allotted to aforesaid Yusuf and Ali. Thus, they were owners of land measuring 932 Kanals 17 Marias. Said Yusaf and Ali sold (i) land measuring 94 Kanals 11 Marias to petitioner No. 2 vide registered sale-deed dated 5.11.1971; (ii) land measuring 141 Kanals 4 Marias to Atamdev Singh, now represented by petitioner Nos. 3 to 6, vide registered sale-deed dated 5.11.1971; and (iii) leased 157/933 share to petitioner No. 1 for a period of 20 years vide registered lease-deed dated 28.4.!971. The State Government published notification dated 25.1.1978 in the Extraordinary Gazette dated 3.2.1978 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") intending to acquire 425 Kanals 17 Marias including land measuring 116 Kanals 15 Marias owned by the petitioners, as well as notification under Section 6 of the Act in Extraordinary Gazette dated 3.2.1978 for the construction of New District Jail, Ludhiana.

3. The said acquisition of land was challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that vide letter No. 1/55/78-LR(i) 26008 dated 18.12.1979, State Government issued directions to all the Deputy Commissioners that if possession of the land is not taken within one year after the issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, the same would be deemed to have lapsed. Since the possession of the land was not taken within one year, therefore, the acquisition stands lapsed and is ineffective and void. Annexure P-7 as appended with the writ petition reads as under:-

Copy of Memo No. 1/55/78-LR(i)26008 dated 18.12.1979 from Dr. Brajendra

Singh, IAS, Joint Secretary to Govt. Punjab. Revenue Department addressed to

all the Deputy Commissioners in the State etc. etc.

Subject: Reduction of time limit provided under Section 6 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 and increase of interest provided in Section 34 ibid.

The Governor of Punjab is pleased to reduce the limit of 3 years laid down in

proviso under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , regarding the

issue of notification under Section 6 ibid to one year. If the possession of

the land is not taken within one year after the issuance of notification under

Section 6, the same would be deemed to have lapsed.

You are requested to ensure that the lands which have been proposed to be

acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , are taken

possession of within one year invariably after the issue of the notification

under Section 6.

The Governor of Punjab is further pleased to increase the rate of interest

under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , from 10% payable from the

date of taking over possession of the land until the compensation is paid.

These instructions will come into force with immediate effect.

The receipt of this communication may please be acknowledged.

Sd/-

Joint Secretary to Govt. Punjab

Revenue Department.

The said circular is dated 28.12.1979 in the orders passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court whereas it is dated 18.12.1979 as appended with the writ petition. For the facility of reference, it would be referred to as "1979 Instructions".

4. In the written statement filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Ludhiana, the possession of the petitioners over the land, subject matter of acquisition, was denied. It was alleged that th