# Shiv Gaur & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 724
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-18
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Shamsher Bahadur Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-gaur-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43921
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring land belonging
to the petitioners for the benefit of a private body, namely Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Mathura.
5 All. Shiv Gaur & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

725
Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 were issued in the years 1979 and 1982 respectively. An
award was made on 20.09.1986, but neither physical possession of the land was taken from the petitioners
nor compensation was paid to them or deposited in court. The compensation amount was merely deposited in
the Government Treasury.

The petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings and during pendency of the writ petition, invoked
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, contending that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed by operation of law.

The question for determination was whether land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 would be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, where the award was made
more than five years prior to commencement of the Act, 2013, but neither possession was taken nor
compensation was paid, even when possession could not be taken due to an interim order of the
Court.Relying upon authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court,including Pune Municipal Corporation
v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, it was held that deposit of compensation in the Government Treasury does
not amount to payment of compensation and that the period during which acquisition proceedings remained
stayed by court order is not liable to be excluded while computing the five-year period under Section 24(2) of
the Act, 2013.
Held: The acquisition proceedings stood lapsed by operation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The impugned
notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were quashed. However, liberty
was granted to the State to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with law under the Act, 2013.

Held: Para-

Case Law discussed:
Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki ,
Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana, Bimla Devi v. State of Haryana, Union of India v. Shivraj Sree Balaji Nagar
Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, Magnum Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Radiance
Fincap Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India.

## Text

724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13. In G. Valli Kumar Vs. Andhra Education Society 2010 (2) SCC 497, it has been
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:

"that the requirement of recording reasons by every quasi judicial or even an
administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an
individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognized facts of the
rules of nature justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the
authority concerned."

14. So far as the submission of learned Standing Counsel with regard to remittance of the
matter to the disciplinary authority is concerned, it may be pointed out that where the procedure has
been adopted for major punishment and during the course of enquiry any defect has occurred then
in such circumstances, the matter ought to have been remitted for further proceeding from the stage
of defect but in the present case, minor punishment has been given after calling explanation from
the delinquent employee, therefore, this Court do not find any reason to remit the matter. In these
circumstances, the assertion of the petitioners is unacceptable.

15. In view of above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment
passed by the Tribunal.

16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, J.

Writ C No.- 10487 Of 1982

Shiv Gaur & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
K.N. Tripathi, B.P. Verma, Krishna Ji Khare, N.K. Gupta, Neeraj Tripathi, Ravi Kant, S C Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.V. Goswami, S.C., Vashistha Tiwari

Land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring land belonging
to the petitioners for the benefit of a private body, namely Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Mathura.
5 All. Shiv Gaur & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

725
Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 were issued in the years 1979 and 1982 respectively. An
award was made on 20.09.1986, but neither physical possession of the land was taken from the petitioners
nor compensation was paid to them or deposited in court. The compensation amount was merely deposited in
the Government Treasury.

The petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings and during pendency of the writ petition, invoked
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, contending that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed by operation of law.

The question for determination was whether land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 would be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, where the award was made
more than five years prior to commencement of the Act, 2013, but neither possession was taken nor
compensation was paid, even when possession could not be taken due to an interim order of the
Court.Relying upon authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court,including Pune Municipal Corporation
v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, it was held that deposit of compensation in the Government Treasury does
not amount to payment of compensation and that the period during which acquisition proceedings remained
stayed by court order is not liable to be excluded while computing the five-year period under Section 24(2) of
the Act, 2013.
Held: The acquisition proceedings stood lapsed by operation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The impugned
notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were quashed. However, liberty
was granted to the State to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with law under the Act, 2013.

Held: Para-

Case Law discussed:
Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki ,
Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana, Bimla Devi v. State of Haryana, Union of India v. Shivraj Sree Balaji Nagar
Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, Magnum Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Radiance
Fincap Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
&
Hon'ble Shamsher Bahadur Singh, J.)

1. For the purpose of a private body namely M/s Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Mathura,
acquisition proceedings were initiated by Collector, Mathura by publishing notification dated
6.6.1979 (published in U.P. Gazette dated 28th July, 1979), inviting objections from interested
persons under Section 5-A (1) of Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to ''Act,1894). It
proposed to acquire 1667 Sq. Yard of land comprising plots no. 1128, 1128/1, 1128/2, 1128/3,
1128/4, 1128/5, 1128/6, 1128/7, 1128/8, 1128/9 and 1128/10, situated in Mohalla Antapara, City
and District Mathura. After considering objections, Collector submitted report and other records to
State Government who made a declaration under Section 6 of Act, 1894 vide notification dated
27th July, 1982, authorizing Collector to acquire notified land.

2. Petitioners are owners of premises at plot no.1128 and also have their shops at plots no.
1128/1 to 1128/10.
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Mathura Branch is running a Kanya Intermediate College,
Mathua which was at a distance of about 100 yards from disputed land. It requested Collector to
acquire disputed land for expansion of college building.

4. Petitioners claim that Arya Pratinidhi Sabha is neither a society registered under
Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act, 1860') nor a Cooperative Society
within the meaning of Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act, 1912'), as
such it does not fall within the definition of 'company' under Act, 1894. Proceedings, however,
were initiated by Collector without examining these aspects of matter and impugned notification
was issued for acquisition of disputed land. It is also said that area of acquired land was mentioned
as "Mohalla Antapara" and not "Tilak Dwar", though the disputed land is situated at Tilak Dwar.
Respondents also did not give public notice as contemplated under Act, 1894. Contending that
acquisition proceedings are bad in law, the same are challenged on the ground that exercise of
acquisition for a private body is a colourable exercise of power.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3, it is said that "Arya
Pratinidhi Sabha" is a registered Society under the provisions of Act, 1860, as such a company
within the definition of Act, 1894 and Mathura Branch is part and parcel of the said body. It is also
said that Arya Samaj Tilak Dwar, Mathura and Laxman Prasad Chaturvedi Arya Kanya Inter
College are wings of U.P. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow. Notification under Section 4 of Act,
1894 was published after making due inquiry as contemplated under Act, 1894 and Rules. Disputed
land is contiguous to Mohalla Antapara and 100 yards away from Tilak Dwar. It is commonly
known as "Mohalla Antapara". Opportunity of filing objection was given to petitioners and they
actually filed objections which were duly considered. Thereafter Collector made inquiry and
submitted report to State Government. Notification under Section 6 of Act, 1894 was published
within three years of notification published under Section 4 of Act, 1894. There is no illegality at
all. Agreement was also executed between State Government and acquiring body for which land
was proposed to be acquired, on 26.7.1982 i.e before publication of notification under Section 4 in
official gazette. Therefore, Section 41 of Act, 1894 was also complied with in words and substance.

6. Another counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no.4 and 5, wherein
also substantially they have adopted what has been stated on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3. In
their counter affidavit, however, it is said that award for compensation has not been given by Land
Acquisition Officer and the matter is pending.

7. An interim order was passed by this Court on 22nd December, 1983 in the following
terms:

"Issue notice.

Notices have already been accepted on behalf of the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 by
the learned Standing Counsel. Sri S.V. Goswami has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents
no.4 and 5. The copies have been delivered to him today. He prays for and is granted three weeks
5 All. Shiv Gaur & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

727
to file a counter affidavit. The petitioner may file a rejoinder affidavit within three weeks. List the
application for orders immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before the Bench concerned.
Meanwhile the petitioner, shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. This case need not
be treated as tied up to me." (emphasis added)

8. Pursuant thereto, respondents could not take possession of disputed land from
petitioners. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as 'SLAO') made
award on 20th September, 1986 which has also been brought on record and it is said that
respondents no.4 and 5 have deposited amount of compensation in Court Treasury in June, 1986.

9. On behalf of petitioners an affidavit along with Misc. Application No.227955 of 2014
has been filed, stating that after declaration of award on 20.9.1986, by SLAO, neither any notice
was served upon petitioners nor they were offered compensation nor have been paid compensation
in respect of disputed land sought to be acquired. It is also said that though writ petition was
dismissed for want of prosecution on 27th November, 1995 and restored on 6.2.2002, but during
this 7 years' period also neither possession was taken nor compensation was paid. It is further said
that a notice was issued by SLAO on 4.1.2000, requiring petitioners to collect compensation,
whereagainst petitioners moved an application for making reference under Section 18 to District
Judge, Mathura and thereupon Land Acquisition Reference No. 2 of 2000 (Uma Devi Versus
Laxman Prasad Chaturvedi Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and others) was made which has been dismissed
by Reference Court in default on 19.3.2014. However, entire amount of compensation is still lying
in Government Treasury. Possession of proposed acquired land is still with petitioners and they
have also not been paid compensation. In view of provisions of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2013'), it is said that proceedings for acquisition stand lapsed and
now respondents cannot proceed to take over land in dispute and Court may pass appropriate order
accordingly in the light of provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of Act, 2013.

10. Learned counsel for petitioners at the time of argument raised only one point that in
view of Section 24(2) of Act, 2013, acquisition proceedings have lapsed by operation of law and,
therefore, impugned notifications and all subsequent proceedings in respect of disputed land are
liable to be set aside.

11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 3 submitted
that possession could not be taken due to interim order passed by this Court and there was no fault
on the part of respondents, hence Section 24(2) of Act, 2013 would have no application in the
present case.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record as also relevant
statutory provisions and judicial authorities on the subject.

13. It is admitted by the parties that possession of disputed land has not been taken by
respondents and it is still with petitioners. It is also admitted that award was pronounced by SLAO
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on 20.9.1986 but compensation has not been paid to petitioners till date. Compensation has also not
been deposited in Court but it was deposited by respondent no.4 and 5 in Government Treasury and
is still lying thereat.

14. In the light of these admitted facts, we have to examine "whether Section 24(2) of Act,
2013 is attracted, rendering entire acquisition proceedings as deemed lapsed or there is any scope
of making aforesaid provisions inapplicable to proceedings in question as argued on behalf of
respondents."

15. Section 24 (2) of Act,2013 reads as under:

"24. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act,1894, -

a) Where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been
made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply;
or

b) Where an award under said Section 11 has been made, then such proceedings
shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not
been repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the
said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the
physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the
said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses,
shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of
this Act:

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a
majority of land holding has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all
beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land
Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
(emphasis added)

16. Section 24 (1)(a) states, if acquisition proceeding is initiated under Act,1894 but no
award under Section 11 has been made, then provisions of Act, 2013, relating to determination of
compensation, shall apply. Section 24 (1)(b) shall be attracted when acquisition proceedings were
initiated under Act, 1894 and award under Section 11 has been made. However, sub-section (2), as
an exception to Sub-section (1) having a non-obstante clause, provides that notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section (1), where acquisition was initiated under Act, 1894, award was
also made under Section 11, but 5 years or more period had passed prior to commencement of Act,
5 All. Shiv Gaur & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

729
2013 and physical possession of land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, then
acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed, with liberty to Government, if it so
decides, to initiate fresh proceedings of acquisition under Act, 2013. Proviso to Section 24(2) is
applicable wherein award has been made but compensation in respect of majority of land holding
has not been deposited in the account of beneficiaries and it shows that in such circumstances all
beneficiaries, specified under notification of acquisition under Section 4 of Act, 1894, shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with Act, 2013.

17. In the present case, award has been made on 20.9.1986 i.e. almost 29 years before the
enactment and commencement of Act, 2013. Further neither possession of disputed land of
petitioners has been taken nor compensation has been paid to petitioners or deposited in Court. It is
in these circumstances, we are of the view that Section 24 (2) would come into play in this case.

18. Section 24(2) of Act, 2013 came to be considered by a Three Judge Bench in Pune
Municipal Corporation and another Versus Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014)3 SCC
183. Court held that Section 24(2) deals with non-ostante clause which has overriding effect over
Section 24(1). If either of two contingencies is satisfied, wherein award has been made 5 years or
more prior to commencement of Act, 2013, i.e. (i) physical possession of land has not been taken or
(ii) compensation has not been paid, Court held that such acquisition proceeding would be deemed
to have lapsed. Court further considered that deposit of amount of compensation in Government
Treasury cannot be treated equivalent to payment of compensation to land owner or any such
person interested therein. For this purpose, it relied upon its earlier decisions in Prem Nath Kapur
Versus National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. (1996) 2 SCC 71 and Ivo Agnelo
Santimano Fernandes and others Versus State of Goa and another (2011) 11 SCC 506 wherein
Court categorically held that deposit of amount of compensation in State's Revenue Department is
of no avail and liability of interest subsists till amount is not deposited in Court.

19. An argument was also raised in Pune Municipal Corporation and another Versus
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki(supra) that land acquisition proceedings have been concluded in
all respects under Act,1894 and they are not affected at all in view of Section 114 (2) of Act, 2013.
This was rejected by observing that Section 114 (2) makes Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1897') applicable with regard to the effect of repeal but this is
subject to provisions under Act, 2013. Since Section 24(2), by legal fiction provides that
acquisition would be deemed to have lapsed, as soon as conditions mentioned therein are satisfied,
hence applicability of Section 6 of Act, 1897 is subject to satisfaction of Section 24 (2) of Act,
2013.

20. A two Judges' Bench in Bharat Kumar Versus State of Haryana, 2014 (6) SCC 586
(decided on 4.2.2014) again had occasion to consider Section 24 (2) of Act, 2013. Therein also
admitted case was that award was made but neither possession was transferred nor compensation
was paid to the land owners. In this view of the matter, Court held that Section 24(2) would apply
and acquisition proceedings so far as appellant, Bharat Kumar is concerned, are deemed to have
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lapsed. Court permitted State to initiate appropriate proceeding for acquisition of land afresh in
accordance with provisions of Act, 2013. Relevant extract of judgement reads as under:

"Sub-section (2) of Section 24 commences with a non obstante cause. It is a
beneficial provision. In view of this provision, if the physical possession of the land has not been
taken by the acquiring authority though the award is passed and if the compensation has not been
paid to the landowners or has not been deposited before the appropriate forum, the proceedings
initiated under the 1894 Act is deemed to have been lapsed.

7. Keeping the aforesaid provisions in view, we have specifically looked into the
assertions made by the appellant and the way it is countered by the respondents. In our opinion
though the award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, they have not taken the
physical possession of the land and have not paid the compensation to the appellant or had
deposited the said compensation before an appropriate forum.

8. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, sub-section(2) of Section
24 of the 2013 Act squarely applies to the appellant's case and the appellant is entitled to relief
sought for in their petition." (emphasis added)

21. Same Bench had occasion to consider same question in another matter i.e. Bimla Devi
and others Versus State of Haryana and others, and in other connected matters, (decided on
15.3.2014), reported in 2014 (6) SCC 583, wherein also it held that acquisition proceedings stood
lapsed since award was made on 18.11.1995 and neither compensation was paid to land owners nor
deposited in court nor physical possession of land was taken from land owner.

22. Then Section 24(2) of Act, 2013 came up for consideration before a three Judges'
Bench in Union of India and others versus Shivraj and others, 2014 (6) SCC 564 (decided on
7th May, 2014). Therein also, Court found that though award was made on 5.6.1987 but neither
possession was taken from land owners nor compensation was paid to them. Though compensation
was deposited with Revenue authorities but the same cannot be termed as deemed payment.
Therein Court also upheld judgement of High Court wherein acquisition proceedings were set aside
for non-compliance of Section 5A of Act,1894.

23. The next question is, "if possession could not be taken by authorities owing to interim
order passed by this Court, would it make any difference and render effect of Section 24(2) of Act,
2013 inapplicable or would make any difference, whatsoever."

24. This question has been considered directly in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential
Association Versus State of Tamil Nadu (decided on 10.9.2014) reported in 2015 (3)SCC 353
and it is held that since period during which stay order passed by Court is operating has not been
excluded by Legislature, it would not be appropriate for Court to read such an exclusion under
Section 24(2). Court, in para 11 of the judgement said as under:
5 All. Shiv Gaur & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

731
"11. From a plain reading of Section 24 of the 2013 Act it is clear that Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act does not exclude any period during which the land acquisition proceeding
might have remained stayed on account of stay or injunction granted by any court. In the same
Act, proviso to Section 19(7) in the context of limitation for publication of declaration under
Section 19(1) and the Explanation to Section 69(2) for working out the market value of the land in
the context of delay between preliminary notification under Section 11 and the date of the award,
specifically provide that the period or periods during which the acquisition proceedings were held
up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court be excluded in computing the
relevant period. In that view of the matter it can be safely concluded that the Legislature has
consciously omitted to extend the period of five years indicated in Section 24(2) even if the
proceedings had been delayed on account of an order of stay or injunction granted by a court of
law or for any reason. Such casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court in view of law on the
subject elaborately discussed by this Court in the case of Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. v.
State of T.N."
(emphasis added)

25. Following above dictum, same view has been taken in Sharma Agro Industries
Versus State of Haryana and others (2015) 3 SCC 341.

26. Another argument advanced is that Act, 2013, being prospective, action taken by State
Government have been protected/saved vide Section 114(2) of Act, 2013 read with Section 6 of
Act,1897, therefore, Section 24(2) of Act, 2013 would not destroy entire acquisition proceeding
already completed under Repealed Act, 1894. It was also argued that two conditions mentioned in
Section 24(1) of Act, 2013 with regard to possession and compensation must be read conjunctively
and same would apply only when both conditions are satisfied. We find that this argument has been
considered and negated in Pune Municipal Corporation and another Versus Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki (supra).

27. In Mangnum Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, 2015 (3) SCC 327, above
view has been reiterated and acquisition proceedings have been declared lapsed where possession
of land was not taken and more than 5 years have passed since the date of award and compensation
was also not paid.

28. Learned Standing Counsel then placed a G.O. dated 30th January, 2015 issued by Suresh
Chandra, Principal Secretary, addressed to all Secretaries, Director (Land Acquisition), Commissioners and
District Magistrates in State of U.P. referring to proviso inserted by Ordinance No.9 of 2014. Even the effect
of this Ordinance has been considered in Radiance Fincap Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India (2015) 1 SCC
677 and it has been held that right conferred under Section 24(2) is a statutory right and cannot be taken away
by Ordinance by inserting proviso to the said subsection, without giving retrospective effect to the same.
Court relied upon its earlier decision in Magnum Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India (supra) and
said that proviso to Ordinance would make no difference. It is prospective in nature and cannot be applied to
a case where Section 24(2) of Act, 2013, as enacted, has already come into operation and by operation of law
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
acquisition has deemed lapsed before insertion of aforesaid proviso. To the same effect is the decision in
Arvind Bansal and others Versus State of Haryana and others (2015) 3 Scale 200.

29. Similar view has been reiterated in Rajiv Choudhrie HUF versus Union of India and others
2015 (3)SCC 541 (decided on 10.12.2014); Rajiv Chaudhrie HUF versus Union of India and others
(decided on 6.2.2015) reported in 2015(3)Scale 203 and Karnail Kaur Versus State of Punjab 2015 (3)
SCC 206.

30. In view of above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that impugned acquisition
notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of Act, 1894 in respect of petitioners' land in dispute and entire
acquisition proceedings in respect thereto are deemed lapsed. The respondents cannot deprive petitioners of
said land in view of aforesaid lapsed proceedings. It would, however, be open to respondents, if they so
decide, to proceed for fresh acquisition in accordance with provisions of Act, 2013.

31. Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned acquisition notifications dated 6.6.1979 and 27th July, 1982
issued under Sections 4 and 6 of Act, 1894, in respect of petitioners' land, disputed in writ petition, are hereby
quashed.

32. There shall be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI LAMBA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA-II, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.- 10570 Of 2016

Rajesh Thru. His Wife Goldy Raj ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jalaj Kumar Gupta, Rizwanul Haque Ansari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate
.................................
Habeas Corpus - Nature and Scope - Writ Not Available Against Detention Pursuant to Legal
Remand by Competent Court During Investigation - Petitioner Remanded Under Cr.P.C. for
Cognizable Offences - Detention Not Illegal - Article 21 of Constitution - Petitioner (accused in
Crime No. 60 of 2016 under Sections 363/366 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act) sought Habeas Corpus
through his alleged wife/prosecutrix Goldy Raj challenging the remand order dated 22.04.2016 passed by