# Ashok Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 785
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 20190 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53987
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
are estopped from invoking Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013 to contend that the acquisition has
lapsed?

HEADNOTE
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6,
17(1),
17(4),
31(2)
-
Right
to
Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 - Sections 24(2), 101 - Deemed lapse of
acquisition proceedings - Constructive res
judicata - Estoppel - Delay & laches
Land in dispute was acquired for construction of
residential and commercial buildings. Petitioners
asserted that neither possession was taken nor
compensation
paid.
Record
showed
that
possession was taken on 24-05-2002 and
compensation deposited in Court under Section
31(2) of the Act, 1894 on 13-12-2007.
Substantial
development
work,
including
construction of roads and public infrastructure,
was undertaken and more than 80% of tenure-
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
holders accepted compensation. Held: Petition
barred by constructive res judicata. Petitioners'
predecessors-in-interest had earlier challenged
the same acquisition in Writ Petition No. 30346
of 2013, which was dismissed on 28-05-2013,
and they had also preferred proceedings under
Section
18
of
the
1894
Act
seeking
enhancement
of
compensation,
thereby
acknowledging
the
validity
of
acquisition.
Principle that no person should be twice vexed
for the same cause and that there must be an
end
to
litigation
applies.
Having
sought
enhanced
compensation,
petitioners
are
estopped from contending lapse under Section
24(2), no one being permitted to approbate and
reprobate simultaneously. Acquisition does not
lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 when
either
possession
has
been
taken
or
compensation has been paid. In the present
case, both conditions stand satisfied. Mere
continuation of petitioners' possession after
symbolic
possession,
particularly
where
substantial development has occurred, does not
negate lawful vesting. Section 24(2) does not
revive or create a fresh cause of action where
acquisition proceedings had already attained
finality prior to 01-01-2014 and cannot be
invoked
to
reopen
settled
matters
after
unreasonable
delay.
Relief
claimed
under
Section 24(2) is untenable as the acquisition has
been upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal Nos. 2944, 2945 and 2947 of 2013 and
by this Court in Baij Nath & Others. Writ petition
also barred by delay and laches. Challenge
raised more than three decades after issuance
of notification under Section 4 on 01-02-1990
and award dated 17-03-1992 is clearly stale.
The Act, 2013 does not revive time-barred or
concluded
acquisitions.
[Paras
8.4,8.6,8.8,8.10] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal,
(2020) 8 SCC 129; Hari Ram v. State of
Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 621; Shyam Verma v.
Land Acquisition Officer, 2024 SCC OnLine MP
1834;
Pune
Municipal
Corporation
v.
Harakchand Misrimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183

List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Right to Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013; Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Section 24(2) - Deemed lapse of acquisition
proceedings - Constructive res judicata -
Estoppel - Delay & laches - De-notification

CASE ARISING FROM

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Abhijeet Mukherji,
Rajesh Mishra,
Advs For Respondents:
C.S.C., Devesh
Vikram, Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, Suresh Singh,
M.C. Chaturvedi (Sr. Adv.) with J.N. Maurya &
Shiv Prakash Gupta

## Text

_Characters 0–39,989 of 75,725. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39989 for what follows._

9 All. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
785
learned State Counsel that a notice was
given to petitioner vide letter no.1102 dated
28.07.2025 but was not availed of by the
petitioner himself who refused either to
submit a reply or to participate in the
proceedings. He has placed reliance on
judgment rendered in the case of Vishwesh
Dayal Shrivastava versus Union of India
& Ors. MANU/UP/2979/2015 reported in
2016(8) ADJ 597 to submit that it has been
held that in case the complainant could not
file the complaint within the prescribed
time limit due to circumstances beyond her
control, the complaint would be entertainable in such circumstances.

36. Prima facie, from submissions
advanced by learned counsel for parties and
perusal of material on record, it appears
that the Local Committee in its report has
not adverted to the aspect of complaint
being beyond the limitation period as
prescribed under Section 9 of Act of 2013.
The aspect of whether the complaint would
come within view of Section 2(n) of the
Act of 2013 has also not been adverted to
by
Local
Committee
in
its
recommendations. Another aspect which
will require consideration is whether the
entire process of inquiry was completed
within one day due to which ample
opportunity of defence was not provided to
petitioner.

37. In view of aforesaid facts and
circumstances, opposite parties are granted
three weeks? time to file a counter
affidavit.

38. List this case on 10.10.2025
alongwith service report.

 39. Till next date of listing, operation
of
impugned
recommendations
dated
01.08.2025 shall remain stayed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 785
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Writ C No. 20190 of 2024

Ashok Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhijeet Mukherji, Rajesh Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Jagannath Maurya, Rajeshwar Tripathi,
Shiv Prakash Gupta

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the petitioners, whose predecessors-ininterest sought enhanced compensation under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
are estopped from invoking Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013 to contend that the acquisition has
lapsed?

HEADNOTE
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6,
17(1),
17(4),
31(2)
-
Right
to
Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 - Sections 24(2), 101 - Deemed lapse of
acquisition proceedings - Constructive res
judicata - Estoppel - Delay & laches
Land in dispute was acquired for construction of
residential and commercial buildings. Petitioners
asserted that neither possession was taken nor
compensation
paid.
Record
showed
that
possession was taken on 24-05-2002 and
compensation deposited in Court under Section
31(2) of the Act, 1894 on 13-12-2007.
Substantial
development
work,
including
construction of roads and public infrastructure,
was undertaken and more than 80% of tenure-
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
holders accepted compensation. Held: Petition
barred by constructive res judicata. Petitioners'
predecessors-in-interest had earlier challenged
the same acquisition in Writ Petition No. 30346
of 2013, which was dismissed on 28-05-2013,
and they had also preferred proceedings under
Section
18
of
the
1894
Act
seeking
enhancement
of
compensation,
thereby
acknowledging
the
validity
of
acquisition.
Principle that no person should be twice vexed
for the same cause and that there must be an
end
to
litigation
applies.
Having
sought
enhanced
compensation,
petitioners
are
estopped from contending lapse under Section
24(2), no one being permitted to approbate and
reprobate simultaneously. Acquisition does not
lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 when
either
possession
has
been
taken
or
compensation has been paid. In the present
case, both conditions stand satisfied. Mere
continuation of petitioners' possession after
symbolic
possession,
particularly
where
substantial development has occurred, does not
negate lawful vesting. Section 24(2) does not
revive or create a fresh cause of action where
acquisition proceedings had already attained
finality prior to 01-01-2014 and cannot be
invoked
to
reopen
settled
matters
after
unreasonable
delay.
Relief
claimed
under
Section 24(2) is untenable as the acquisition has
been upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal Nos. 2944, 2945 and 2947 of 2013 and
by this Court in Baij Nath & Others. Writ petition
also barred by delay and laches. Challenge
raised more than three decades after issuance
of notification under Section 4 on 01-02-1990
and award dated 17-03-1992 is clearly stale.
The Act, 2013 does not revive time-barred or
concluded
acquisitions.
[Paras
8.4,8.6,8.8,8.10] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal,
(2020) 8 SCC 129; Hari Ram v. State of
Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 621; Shyam Verma v.
Land Acquisition Officer, 2024 SCC OnLine MP
1834;
Pune
Municipal
Corporation
v.
Harakchand Misrimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183

List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Right to Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013; Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Section 24(2) - Deemed lapse of acquisition
proceedings - Constructive res judicata -
Estoppel - Delay & laches - De-notification

CASE ARISING FROM

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Abhijeet Mukherji,
Rajesh Mishra,
Advs For Respondents:
C.S.C., Devesh
Vikram, Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, Suresh Singh,
M.C. Chaturvedi (Sr. Adv.) with J.N. Maurya &
Shiv Prakash Gupta

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rajesh Mishra and Shri
Abhijeet Mukherji, learned counsels for the
petitioners, Shri Devesh Vikram and Shri
Shuresh Singh, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsels and Shri Fuzail Ahmad
Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents and Shri M.C. Chaturvedi,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri J.N.
Maurya and Shri Shiv Prakash Gupta, learned
counsels for the respondent - Meerut
Development Authority.

2. Since all the aforesaid writ petitions
involve a common legal issue concerning
the applicability of Section 24(2) and
Section
101
of
the
Right
to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013, and with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties,
the petitions have been clubbed together,
heard analogously, and are being disposed
of by this common judgment.

3.1 The Writ-C No. 20190 of 2023 has
been filed, praying inter alia seeking issue a
9 All. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
787
writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 1
to 3 to return and re-convey the petitioners'
land
ad-measuring
0.2530
hectares,
comprised in Khasra No. 708, situated at
Village Abdullapur, Pargana and Tehsil
Meerut, which was earlier sought to be
acquired for the project of the Meerut
Development Authority1, namely 'Ganga
Nagar Awasiya Vyasayik Yojana', in terms
of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 and the corresponding Section 101 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement
Act,
20132; and further, to de-notify the said
land as the acquisition proceedings initiated
through notifications dated 01.02.1990
under Section 4(1) and 07.03.1990 under
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
18943 have lapsed under Section 24(2) of
the Act of 2013; and in the alternative, to
consider
and
decide
the
petitioners'
representation dated 30.01.2018 (Annexure
No. 11 to this writ petition) regarding
reversion and return of the land, after
affording them due opportunity of hearing,
within a stipulated period of time.

3.2 Similarly, WRIT - C No. - 32858
of 2024 has been filed seeking a direction
in the nature of Mandamus commanding
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to return and reconvey the petitioners' land ad-measuring
0.8760 hectares, comprised in Khasra No.
770,
situated
at
Village
Abdullapur,
Pargana and Tehsil Meerut, which was
earlier sought to be acquired for the project
of the Meerut Development Authority,
namely 'Ganga Nagar Awasiya Vyasayik
Yojana', in terms of Section 48 of the Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894
and
the
corresponding Section 101 of the Act,
2013; and further, to de-notify the said land
as the acquisition proceedings initiated
through notifications dated 01.02.1990
under Section 4(1)/ 17(4) and 07.03.1990
under Section 6/ 17(1) of the Act, 1894
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act
of 2013; and in the alternative, to consider
and decide the petitioners' claim for
reversion and return of the land, in the
same manner as was done for other tenure
holders through Government notifications
dated 29.12.2016 and 10.03.2017, after
affording due opportunity of hearing,
within a stipulated period of time.

3.3 Similarly, WRIT-C No.16299 of
2023 has been filed seeking a direction in
the nature of Mandamus commanding
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to return and reconvey the petitioners' land admeasuring
5.703 hectares, comprised in Khasra Nos.
740, 749, 750, 801, 781, 763, 501 and 772,
situated at Village Abdullapur, Pargana and
Tehsil Meerut, which was earlier sought to
be acquired for the project of the Meerut
Development Authority, namely 'Ganga Nagar
Awasiya Vyasayik Yojana', in terms of Section
48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the
corresponding Section 101 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013; and further, to de-notify the said land
as the acquisition proceedings initiated through
notifications dated 01.02.1990 under Section
4(1) and 07.03.1990 under Section 6 of the Act,
1894 have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Act of 2013; and in the alternative, to consider
and decide the petitioners' representation dated
30.01.2018 (Annexure No. 11 to this writ
petition) regarding reversion and return of the
land, after affording them due opportunity of
hearing, within a stipulated period of time.

A. FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. The record reveals that, vide
notification dated 27.01.1990 issued under
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act, 1894,
the State Government of Uttar Pradesh
proposed to acquire 246.931 acres of land
situated in Village Abdullapur, Pargana,
Tehsil and District Meerut. Thereafter, on
01.02.1990, a declaration under Sections 6
and 17(1) of the Act, 1894 was published in
the Official Gazette. Subsequently, another
notification under Section 6 of the Act,
1894, was issued on 07.03.1990, which was
also published in two local newspapers on
10.03.1990.

4.1 Since the acquisition was stated
to be of an urgent nature, the State
invoked the provisions of Section 17(1)
and Section 17(4) of the Act, 1894,
thereby dispensing with the inquiry
contemplated under Section 5-A of the
Act,
1894.
The
acquisition
was
purportedly
undertaken
for
the
construction
of
residential
and
commercial buildings under a planned
development scheme, namely 'Ganga
Nagar Awasiya Vyasayik Yojana', to be
executed by the MDA. Pursuant thereto,
notices under Section 9 of the Act, 1894
were issued, in response to which certain
tenure-holders submitted their objections.

4.2 On 17.03.1992, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer passed an award. As
the urgency clause under Section 17(1) had
been invoked, possession of the land was
taken in phases, i.e. on 18.06.1998 (31
acres), 12.04.1999 (11 acres), 24.05.2002
(200 acres), and 30.12.2010 (4.931 acres).
The records indicate that the acquisition
affected 223 tenure-holders, out of whom
more than 80% (181 tenure-holders)
accepted
the
compensation.
However,
certain
tenure-holders
(including
petitioners' predecessors-in-interest), being
aggrieved
with
the
quantum
of
compensation, preferred Land Acquisition
References (LARs). In total, 84 LARs were
filed.

4.3 The record further indicates that
the
MDA,
by
its
resolution
dated
17.09.1997, initially resolved to withdraw
from the acquisition proceedings in respect
of the land, except for an extent of 42.018
acres. However, by a subsequent resolution
dated 15.03.2002, the MDA rescinded its
earlier decision and resolved to proceed
with the development of the entire acquired
land of Ganga Nagar Colony, noting that
substantial investments had already been
made towards the construction of roads,
sewerage, and other civic amenities.

4.4 Aggrieved by the revised proposal
of the MDA dated 15.03.2002, four writ
petitions came to be filed before this Court
by the original tenure-holders, wherein, the
sole relief sought was for a direction to the
MDA to give effect to its earlier resolution
dated
17.09.1997,
which
the
State
Government had declined. One such
petition was Writ-C No. 7748 of 2002
(Bimal Chand Jain and others vs. State of
U.P. and others). All the writ petitions were
decided by a common judgment and order
dated 02.12.2009, directing the respondent-
MDA to act upon its resolution dated
17.09.1997. For ready reference, the
judgment dated 02.12.2009 passed in WritC No. 7748 of 2002 (Bimal Chand Jain and
others vs. State of U.P. and others) is
reproduced hereinbelow:

"In this petition, the original
owners are Bimal Chand Jain, Sudarshan
Kumar Jain and Sudesh Kumar Jain,
petitioners no.1 to 3 respectively and Vivek
Jain and Smt. Asha Jain (petitioner nos.4/1
and 4/2 respectively), substituted after the
death of original owner petitioner no.4
Subhash Kumar Jain. They have not
9 All. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
789
pressed other reliefs, except the relief
seeking a writ of mandamus to command
the
Meerut
Development
Authority,
respondent no.4 to press the resolution
dated 14.5.02, which has been rejected by
the Government. A perusal of the rejection
order reveals that rejection is not based for
other reasons, except that the land
proposed to be released under Section 48
the Land Acquisition Act, has been thrust
upon the development authority to sell it
out so that its financial position is
improved.
This
is
no
reason.
The
acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act
is made for the public purpose if needed.
No doubt the town plan development of the
council is a public purpose done by the
development authority but the development
authority when itself says that it is not
needed, then the condition of acquisition is
not fulfilled as contained in the Land
Acquisition Act. Therefore reason of
rejection is not germane to the provisions
of
the
Land
Acquisition
Act.
The
Development Authority is directed to press
its resolution if the authority is not in need
of the said land. The petition is accordingly
disposed of."

4.5 Assailing the judgment and order
dated 02.12.2009, three Civil Appeals,
being Civil Appeal Nos. 2944 of 2013,
2945 of 2013, and 2947 of 2013 were
preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. By judgment dated 08.04.2013, the
said appeals were dismissed. While doing
so, the Supreme Court took note of the
reliefs sought by the tenure-holders before
the writ court, which are extracted herein
below:

"i. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent no.1 to accept
the
proposal
for
withdrawing
from
acquisition in view of the resolution dated
17.9.97
submitted
by
the
Meerut
Development Authority at the earliest
within a period to be fixed by this Hon'ble
Court.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
entire land acquisition proceedings in
pursuance of the notification u/s 4 dated
27.1.1990 and declaration u/s 6 of the Act
dated 7.3.90.

ii-a. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the order/decision communicated
by letter dated 24.08.2002 (Annexure-16 to
the writ petition).

iii. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding
the
respondents
not
to
dispossess
the petitioners from their
respective lands forcibly in pursuance of
the acquisition for declaration was issued
u/s 6 of the Act on 6.3.90.

iv. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents to pay the damages for
financial loss, mental agony and pain to the
petitioners in view of section 48(2) of the
Act.

v. Issue any other writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

vi. Award cost of the writ petition
to the petitioners."

4.6
The
Supreme
Court,
while
adjudicating the appeals, summarized the
undisputed facts in paragraph 10 of its
judgment
dated
08.04.2013,
which
is
reproduced herein below for ready reference:

"10. Some of the important facts
which
are
not
in
dispute
can
be
summarized as under:
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i) Notification under Section 4
and Declaration under Section 6 were
issued for the acquisition of 246.931 acres
of the land for the purpose of construction
of residential/commercial building under
the planned Development Scheme in the
District of Meerut by the MDA;

(ii) Inquiry under Section 5A of
the Act was dispensed with since provision
of Section 17(1)&(4) was invoked;

(iii) In response to the notice
under Section 9(1) of the Act, the
appellant-land
owners
filed
their
objections, and finally, the award under
Section 11 of the Act was passed on
17.3.1992 by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer; and

(iv)
As
requested
by
the
appellants
and
other
land
owners,
reference under Section 18 of the Act was
made on 22.9.1997."

4.7 The Supreme Court, while dealing
with the aforesaid category of cases, also
took into consideration the counter affidavit
filed by the MDA, wherein it was averred
that the land in question had been acquired
for the Ganga Nagar Housing Extension
Scheme, keeping in view the acute need for
housing accommodation and with a view to
preventing unregulated and unplanned
construction. It was further stated that
notices under Section 9(1) of the Act, 1894,
were issued, inviting objections, and upon
completion of the prescribed procedure, an
award came to be passed on 17.03.1992.

4.8 The Supreme Court also took note
of the fact that, following the said award, a
sum of Rs.5.32 crores, out of the total
compensation amount of Rs.5.51 crores,
was deposited with SLO. The appellants
had preferred reference applications in the
year
2002
for
enhancement
of
compensation. It was further noted that
possession of the acquired land was taken
by the State Government and handed over
to the MDA in the year 2002. Out of the
total acquired land measuring 246 acres,
approximately 125 acres had already been
allotted for residential and institutional
purposes as per the applicable Master Plan.

4.9 The MDA had also placed on
record in the said proceeding that it had
incurred an expenditure of approximately
Rs.21
crores
since
2002
toward
development
activities,
including
the
construction of overhead water tanks,
roads, sewage treatment plants, and other
essential civic infrastructure. The earlier
request for withdrawal of acquisition, as
per the resolution dated 17.09.1997, had
been rescinded by a fresh resolution dated
15.03.2002, whereby the MDA resolved to
proceed with the development of the entire
acquired land as Ganga Nagar Colony. The
remaining land is also under development,
with considerable investment made in the
construction of roads, sewerage systems,
and other civic amenities.

4.10 While examining the factual
matrix of the case, the Supreme Court also
addressed the core issue that arose for
consideration, namely: whether merely on
the
basis
of
internal
correspondence
between
the
MDA
and
the
State
Government, and in light of the MDA's
resolution
dated
17.09.1997
to
seek
withdrawal
of
acquisition
subject
to
approval of the State Government, a writ of
mandamus could be issued directing the
State or the MDA to denotify or derequisition the land that had already been
acquired following due process of law and
in respect of which an award had been
passed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer. This issue was considered and
answered by the Supreme Court in
9 All. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
791
paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19 of its
judgment dated 08.04.2013.

4.11 The aforesaid three civil appeals
were dismissed by the Supreme Court,
holding that since the urgency clause had
been invoked and the land had vested in the
State free from all encumbrances, it could
not be released subsequently. Meanwhile,
the
predecessors-in-interest
of
the
petitioners
challenged
the
acquisition
proceedings by filing Writ-C No. 30346 of
2013 (Baij Nath and 80 others vs. State of
U.P. and 2 others), primarily on the ground
that possession of the acquired land had not
been taken by the State Government or the
MDA. The Division Bench of this Court,
while considering the aforesaid contention,
also took note of the judgment and order
dated 08.04.2013 passed by the Supreme
Court, and accordingly dismissed Writ-C
No. 30346 of 2013 by its order dated
28.05.2013.

4.12 The record further reveals that the
State Government had issued notifications
dated 22.12.2016 and 10.03.2017, whereby
certain plots were de-notified. Relying
upon these notifications, all the aforesaid
three writ petitions have been filed, seeking
the relief as mentioned hereinabove.

C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONERS:

5. Shri Rajesh Mishra and Shri
Abhijeet Mukherji, learned counsels for the
petitioners vehemently submitted that the
land
acquisition
proceedings
initiated
through
notification
dated
01.02.1990
under Section 4/ 17(4) and subsequent
notification dated 07.03.1990 under Section
6 17(1) of the Act, 1894, have lapsed in
view of the provisions contained in Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013. It has been argued
that the essential preconditions under the
said section, that physical possession must
be taken and compensation must be paid,
have not been met in the instant case even
after a lapse of more than three decades
from the date of notification.

5.1 It is contended that although an
award was declared on 17.03.1992, no
compensation was paid to the petitioners or
their predecessors-in-interest, nor was any
attempt made to deposit the same in their
names. More importantly, the physical
possession of the land in question was
never taken over by the authorities.
Learned counsels have referred to a series
of letters exchanged between the MDA and
other authorities, particularly the letters
dated
21.05.1998,
31.08.1998,
and
06.06.2000, which clearly record that the
land in question was never taken into
possession by the authority and that the
acquisition was not being pursued for a
substantial area measuring 204.912 acres.
These facts have remained uncontested on
record
and,
therefore,
conclusively
establish that the acquisition proceedings
qua the land of the petitioners have lapsed
by operation of law.

5.2 It is further submitted that the
petitioners stand on the same legal and
factual footing as the landowners whose
lands have already been released by the
State Government through notification
dated 10.03.2017 and affirmed by the order
dated 24.04.2017. The principle of parity
and non-discrimination mandates that the
petitioners be treated equally, especially
when their Khasra numbers are adjacent to
or similarly situated as those already denotified. Learned counsels point out that
several writ petitions, particularly Writ-C
No.16299 of 2023, arising out of the same
acquisition
proceedings
have
been
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
entertained by this Court and status quo
orders granted. Therefore, denial of similar
relief to the petitioners would amount to
hostile discrimination, arbitrariness and in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

5.3 It is also urged that the attempt of
the MDA to now forcibly dispossess the
petitioners,
despite
their
continued
possession and absence of compensation, is
not only without the authority of law but
also contrary to the spirit of the Act, 2013.
The photographs filed with the petition,
also demonstrate the continued possession
and cultivation by the petitioners, and the
complete absence of any development or
governmental activity over the land in
question. The learned counsel has also
referred to the legal position that when
possession is not taken, the State can
withdraw from acquisition under Section
48 of the Act, 1894 now Section 101 of the
Act, 2013 and the tenure holders would be
entitled
to
restoration
of
land
and
compensation for damages.

5.4 Finally, it is submitted that the
petitioners have a right to be heard and their
land cannot be retained by the MDA and the
acquisition proceedings would have lapsed by
operation of law. The conduct of the
development
authority,
in
requesting
compensation in 2007 without even identifying
the relevant Khasras, and then suppressing its
own failed representations before the State
Government, is reflective of mala-fides. The
petitioners are poor agriculturists with no other
source of livelihood and cannot be subjected to
arbitrary dispossession. Therefore, the learned
counsels pray that the Court declare the
acquisition to have lapsed in terms of Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013.

5.5 In support of their submissions,
learned counsels for the petitioners have
placed heavy reliance on the judgment of
Supreme Court passed in Hari Ram &
Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors stating
that similarly situated land owners should
not be discriminated as it is grossly against
the constitutional theme enshrined under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Secondly, he has placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in
the case of Shyam Verma versus Land
Aquisition
Officer
holding
that
the
urgency clause shouldn't be ordinary
invoked as it would tantamount to misuse
of
the
provision,
moreover
if
the
acquisition
proceedings
couldn't
be
concluded at the earliest it should be
deemed as lapsed.

D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF
OF
RESPONDENT
-
MERRUT
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
(MDA):

6. Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri J.N.
Maurya and Shri Shiv Prakash Gupta,
learned counsel for the respondent - MDA
submits that these writ petitions are the
second one filed on the same cause of
action, as a previous writ petition (Writ-C
No.30346 of 2013) filed by the petitioners'
predecessors-in-interest
and
others
challenging the same acquisition was
dismissed by this Court on 28.05.2013, and
the same was upheld by the Supreme Court
in Civil Appeal Nos. 2944, 2945 and 2947,
all of 2013. The acquisition of the said land
was undertaken under notifications dated
27.01.1990 and 07.03.1990, followed by an
award dated 17.03.1992, with possession
taken on various dates, and compensation
deposited in the court on 13.12.2007 under
Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. Numerous
litigations related to the same acquisition
have been decided against the tenure
9 All. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
793
holders by both the High Court and the
Supreme Court. Furthermore, more than
80% of affected tenure holders accepted
compensation, and MDA's name was duly
mutated in revenue records. Substantial
development has taken place on the land in
question, including construction of roads
(18m and 36m), drainage, sewage, and
electricity infrastructure.

6.1 Learned Senior Counsel further
submits that the petitioners' predecessorsin-interest had also filed Land Acquisition
Reference (LARs) Application solely for
enhancement of compensation, not for
return of land. The MDA Board's earlier
resolution (dated 17.09.1997) to withdraw
from part of the acquisition was later
rescinded by resolution dated 15.03.2002,
and multiple petitions challenging this were
dismissed by the Supreme Court. The
petitioners' reliance on government denotification orders dated 22.12.2016 and
10.03.2017 is misplaced in light of the
Constitution Bench ruling in Indore
Development Authority vs. Manoharlal
and others, which clarified that acquisition
does not lapse if either compensation has
been paid or possession taken. Whereas in
this case, both have occurred. Learned
Senior Advocate submits that the petitions
are barred by principles of res judicata and
delay, lack merit under the amended
interpretation of Section 24(2), and should
be dismissed accordingly.

E. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF
OF STATE RESPONDENTS:

7. Shri Devesh Vikram and Shri
Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsels and Shri Fuzail Ahmad
Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents
submit
that
the
acquisition proceedings were completed in
accordance with law and cannot be deemed
to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013. The chronological sequence of
events establishes beyond doubt that the
Award was duly passed on 17.3.1992 by
the
competent
authority,
physical
possession of the land in question was
handed over to the Authority on 24.5.2002,
and the compensation amount for affected
tenure holders who had not received
compensation was deposited with the Court
through letter no. 1451 dated 13.12.2007,
alongwith treasury cheque no. 58194 dated
7.12.2017 for Rs. 2,46,05,733/- under
Section 31(2) of the Act, 1894. It is further
submitted that the majority of the tenure
holders
had
already
received
their
compensation, and for those who had not
received the same on account of their
pressing LARs, proper notices were issued
and the compensation amount was duly
deposited with the Court in accordance
with the provisions of law.

7.1 The learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsels emphasizes that the
petitioners'
reliance
on
earlier
denotifications
dated
22.12.2016
and
10.3.2017 is fundamentally flawed due to
subsequent judicial developments. These
de-notifications were issued based on the
then prevailing interpretation of Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013 as laid down in
Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harak
Chand Misrimal Solanki. However, this
interpretation
has
been
categorically
overruled by a Constitution Bench of Five
Judges of the Supreme Court in Indore
Development Authority (supra). In the
Indore Development Authority case, the
Supreme Court specifically observed that
"the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) is hereby overruled
and all other decisions in which Pune
Municipal Corporation has been followed,
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
are
also
overruled.
This
judicial
development completely changes the legal
landscape and renders the petitioners'
contentions untenable.

7.2 The learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsels further submits that
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 provides
that "in case the possession has been taken
but the compensation has not been paid
before the commencement of the Act,
2013, the proceedings shall be deemed to
be lapsed." However, this provision is not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the
present
case.
The
acquisition
proceedings in the present case were
completed much before the commencement
of the Act, 2013. The Award was passed on
17.3.1992,
possession
was
taken
on
24.5.2002, and compensation was paid to
the majority of affected persons. For those
who had not received compensation, the
same was deposited with the Court under
Section 31(2) of the Act, 1894, after due
notices. Following the Supreme Court's
decision
in
Indore
Development
Authority (supra), the interpretation of
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2023 has been
clarified, and it cannot be said that land
acquisition proceedings in respect of the
petitioners shall be deemed to have lapsed
merely
because
some
compensation
amount were deposited with the Court
rather than being directly paid to individual
tenure holders, moreover, keeping in view
that proceedings under the LARs were
preferred by some tenure holders and the
predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners
which are pending adjudication.

7.3 It is further submitted that the
office order dated 24.4.2017 (Annexure no.
8 to writ petition) passed by the then
Additional Chief Secretary, Housing &
Urban Planning, Government of U.P.,
while rejecting the review application dated
28.03.2017 submitted by the MDA for the
review of earlier de-notification dated
10.03.2017, was in consonance to the case
of Sitaram vs. State of Haryana passed by
the Supreme Court in SLP no. 534 and
Civil Appeal no. 5811 of 2015 (Delhi
Development Authority vs. Sukhbir Singh).
In both these cases, reference was made to
the case decided by the Supreme Court in
Pune Municipal Corporation (supra).
However, they reiterated that the view
taken in the Pune Municipal Corporation
case has been overruled in the case of
Indore Development Authority (supra).

7.4 It is further emphasized that the present
case is entirely distinguishable from those
cases where lands were de-notified. The
circumstances that led to the issuance of
de-notifications
dated
22.12.2016
and
10.3.2017 were based on the thenprevailing legal interpretation under Pune
Municipal Corporation case (supra), which
has since been overruled. The petitioners
cannot claim similar treatment when the
factual and legal matrix is entirely
different. The key distinguishing factors
include the fact that the Award was duly
passed on 17.3.1992 and the physical
possession was handed over to the
authority on 24.05.2002, majority of tenure
holders received compensation, remaining
compensation was deposited with the Court
under proper legal provisions, and the
acquisition process was completed in its
entirety. Moreover, the Supreme Court
already
approved
the
acquisition.
Therefore, it is wrong to state that the
circumstances which led to issuing of denotifications on 22.12.2016 and 10.3.2017
are similar to that of the present case.

7.5 It is also argued that as far as the
compensation is concerned, the learned
9 All. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795
counsel
has
provided
comprehensive
information to the same which adequately
demonstrates the completeness of the
acquisition process. The MDA initially
deposited a sum of Rs.5,32,00,000/-
through cheque bearing no.J088699 dated
5.3.1992 issued by Allahabad Bank and
intimated by letter no. 98 dated 5.3.1992 of
the Vice Chairman of the Authority.
Additionally, Rs.19,24,118.02 (out of total
Rs.32,73,152.08) was deposited through
cheque no. 279455 dated 24.10.2001 of
Allahabad Bank, deposited on 2.11.2001. It
is clarified that this cheque amount
included compensation for three Yojanas,
including Rs.19,24,118.02 for Ganga Nagar
Yojana.
The
remaining
compensation
amount was deposited with the Court vide
letter no. 1451 dated 13.12.2007, ensuring
that all affected parties had access to their
rightful
compensation.
These
deposits
demonstrate that the acquisition process
was completed with due regard to the rights
of all affected tenure holders.

7.6 In order to provide complete
transparency the authority has brought on
record certain administrative decisions too.
The decision to release 204.312 acres of
land, which was taken in the meeting of the
MDA
Board
on
30.03.1998,
was
subsequently cancelled in the meeting of
the MDA Board on 15.3.2002. This
demonstrates the Authority's commitment
to retaining the acquired land for its
intended public purpose and shows that all
administrative actions were taken with
proper deliberation and in accordance with
the Authority's mandate.

7.7 The petitioners' allegations of
discrimination and violation of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India are
completely unfounded. The learned counsel
submits
that
there
has
been
no
discriminatory
treatment,
and
all
procedures
have
been
followed
in
accordance with law. The fact that some
other lands were de-notified does not create
any legal right for the petitioners to claim
similar
treatment
when
the
factual
circumstances are entirely different. The
State Government has not adopted any
"pick-and-choose policy" as alleged by the
petitioners. It is settled preposition of law
that each case must be decided on its own
merits and factual matrix, and the present
case clearly establishes that the acquisition
was completed in accordance with law
much before the commencement of the Act,
2013.

7.8 The learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsels further submits that the
present writ petition suffers from the fatal
defect of delay and laches. The petition has
been filed after a lapse of approximately 11
years from the date of enforcement of the
Act, 2013 (i.e., 1.1.2014). Furthermore, it is
relevant to note that an earlier Writ-C No.
30346
of
2013
was
dismissed
on
25.08.2013,
wherein
petitioners'
predecessors-in-interest were parties. More
significantly, petitioners' predecessors-ininterest had preferred Land Acquisition
References
(LARs)
for
higher
compensation under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. Having participated
in the acquisition proceedings and sought
enhanced compensation, therefore it is not
open to the the petitioners to now claim
that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. This
amounts to taking contradictory stands and
seeking
to
approbate
and
reprobate
simultaneously, which is not permissible in
law.

7.9 Lastly, it is submitted by learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsels that
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the acquisition proceedings were completed
in accordance with law, and there is no
question of the same having lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 or they are
entitled for any relief under Section 101 of
the act, 2013. The interpretation of Section
24(2) as laid down by the Supreme Court in
Indore Development Authority (supra) is
directly applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case. The
petitioners cannot claim benefit of denotifications issued in other cases where
the factual matrix was entirely different.
The petition suffers from delay, laches, and
contradictory
stands
taken
by
the
petitioners' predecessor, and there is no
violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. They submit that in
view of the legal precedents, and settled
position of law, all the aforementioned writ
petitions are liable to be dismissed in the
interest of justice.

F. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:

8. We have thoroughly considered the
pleadings,
rival
submissions,
and
documentary material placed on record.
The principal prayer of the petitioners
seeking a declaration that the acquisition in
respect of disputed land situated in Village
Abdullapur, District Meerut, stands lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, is
based on the twin assertions that neither
compensation has been paid to the
petitioners nor physical possession of the
subject land has been taken by the
acquiring body and the land may be denotified from the acquisition under Section
101 of the Act, 2013.

8.1
The
Supreme
Court,
while
considering the aforementioned Civil Appeal
Nos. 2944, 2945, and 2947 of 2013, vide its
judgment dated 08.04.2013, summarized the
factual matrix of the case. Notifications under
Section 4/ 17(4) of the Act, 1894, and
declaration under Section 6/ 17(1) of the Act,
1894 were issued for the construction of
residential and commercial buildings under
the planned development scheme in Meerut
by the MDA. The total land involved was
246.93 acres. Admittedly, the urgency
clauses under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) were
invoked, and the inquiry under Section 5-A
of the Act, 1894, was dispensed with. It was
also an admitted position that notices under
Section 9(1) of the Act had been issued to the
landowners, some of whom filed objections,
and finally, an award was prepared under
Section 11 of the Act, 1894, on 17.03.1992
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.