# Smt. Kamla Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 315
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-11
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 21038 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kamla-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49015
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Acquisition Law
- Right to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 17(2) &
24(2) - Lapse of acquisition - Possession
u/s 17 (2) was taken place and name of
the Development Authority was entered in
revenue record - Effect - Held, if some of
the individual, who was the owner of the
land in possession at the time of
acquisition, continues in possession, may
be by building a house, or raising some
other construction, the act of the person
continuing
in
possession,
would
be
trespass - Shyoraj Singh's case relied
upon - High Court denied to accept the
claim of the petitioner to lapse the
acquisition u/s 24(2). (Para 16 and 18)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

9 All. Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
315
ALR 74 decided on 11.8.2005. The relevant
paragraph 4 of the aforesaid decision is
being reproduced hereunder:-

"4. It is the standard law that if
any bona fide dispute as to two rival
Committees of Managements is shown to be
in existence to the Registrar or Assistant
Registrar, a reference by him of the dispute
to the Prescribed Authority follows as a
matter of course. But a bona fide dispute
does come into existence merely because
one member, even if he is a founder
member, chooses simply to he has say or
assert that he has a rival Committee and
therefore, a bona fide dispute as to
Management exists. Sufficient prima facie
material must be produced before the
Registrar before he can validly exercise his
jurisdiction of referring the dispute. He
must, simply put, be satisfied that there is
something to refer and he is not merely
sending litigations before the Prescribed
Authority, without there being even a
shadow of real cause for litigation."

15. In view of the above, the writ
petition lacks merit. It is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 315
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ C No. 21038 of 2022

Smt. Kamla Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vivek Saran

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajeev Singh (Standing Counsel), Sri
J.N. Maurya

A. Acquisition Law
- Right to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 17(2) &
24(2) - Lapse of acquisition - Possession
u/s 17 (2) was taken place and name of
the Development Authority was entered in
revenue record - Effect - Held, if some of
the individual, who was the owner of the
land in possession at the time of
acquisition, continues in possession, may
be by building a house, or raising some
other construction, the act of the person
continuing
in
possession,
would
be
trespass - Shyoraj Singh's case relied
upon - High Court denied to accept the
claim of the petitioner to lapse the
acquisition u/s 24(2). (Para 16 and 18)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Shyoraj Singh & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2021 SCC OnLine All 873
2. Indore Development Authority Vs Manoharlal
& ors.; (2020) 8 SCC 129
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
challenging an order dated 26th May, 2022
passed by the State Government declining
to declare proceedings for acquisition of
the petitioner's land comprised of Gata No.
340/1,
measuring
0-10-3
(0.12836
hectares), situate in Village Kunda, District
Meerut lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Right
to
Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(for short, ''the Act of 2013').
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Heard Mr. Vivek Saran, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajeev
Singh, learned Standing Counsel for
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to
4 and Mr. J.N. Maurya, learned Counsel
appearing for respondent No. 5.

3. The facts leading to this petition are
that large tracts of land, part of Revenue
Villages
of
Achraunda,
Kanchanpur
Ghopla, Kansa, Nagla Sherkho, Kunda and
Rithani in District Meerut were proposed to
be acquired for the purpose of development
of Shatabdi Nagar Awasiya Yojna, Meerut.
A notification under Section 4(1) read with
Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short, ''the Act of 1894) dated
14.08.1987 was issued. The aforesaid
notification was followed by a declaration
under Section 6(1) read with Section 17(4)
of the Act of 1894 dated 04.09.1987. Award
for the land acquired was announced on
22.02.1990,
which
was
amended
on
15.03.1990 and 25.06.1990. A part of this
acquisition was a plot bearing No. 340/1,
measuring 0-10-3 (0.12836 hectares) in
Village Kunda, District Meerut. The
aforesaid land belongs to the petitioner,
Smt. Kamla Devi. The dispute in this writ
petition relates to the aforesaid plot, which
shall be hereinafter referred to as ''the land
in dispute'.

4. It is the petitioner's case that
physical possession of the land in dispute
was never taken by the State or transferred
to the Meerut Development Authority (for
short, ''the Development Authority') and no
compensation has been paid to her till date.
In the circumstances, upon coming into
force of the Act of 2013 w.e.f. 1st January,
2014, a period of five years have elapsed
since the making of the award, and physical
possession of the land has not been taken
by the State Government. It is the
petitioner's
case
that
in
similar
circumstances,
one
Harbhajan
Singh,
whose land was acquired for the same
purpose and through the same notification,
had the subject land returned to him by a
decision of the State Government dated
23rd January, 2015, holding the acquisition
to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Act of 2013.

5. The petitioner has made a
grievance that his case has been treated
differentially than Harbhajan Singh, though
identical on all premises. The petitioner
approached
this
Court,
seeking
a
declaration that proceedings relating to the
land in dispute for acquisition be declared
as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of
2013 through Writ-C No. 34122 of 2015.
The said writ petition was disposed of by
this Court vide order dated 02.03.2017,
granting liberty to the petitioner to raise her
claim before the Collector, Meerut, who
was directed to process the petitioner's
claim within four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Court's order. The
Collector was further directed to convey his
recommendations to the State Government
after processing the petitioner's claim,
whereas
the
State
Government
was
directed, upon receiving the Collector's
recommendation, to decide the petitioner's
claim about lapsing of acquisition.

6. The petitioner submitted her claim
to the District Magistrate, Meerut in terms
of this Court's order dated 02.03.2017. The
District Magistrate called for reports from
the Tehsildar, who in turn sought the
Lekhpal's report. The Lekhpal and the
Tehsildar submitted a report on 16.11.2017
to the District Magistrate saying that the
petitioner is in actual physical possession
of the land in dispute. The Tehsildar/
Lekhpal's report dated 16.11.2017 is on
9 All. Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
317
record as Annexure No.5 to the writ
petition. It was, however, reported by the
Lekhpal that Gata No. 340 of Village
Kunda was a much subdivided plot and its
subdivisions were located in different
Khata numbers of the village. It was
reported that so far as the land in dispute is
concerned (Gata No. 340/1, measuring
0.1260 hectares), it was recorded in the
khatauni in the name of the Meerut
Development Authority Shatabdi Nagar
Yojna. However on the spot, on the land in
dispute, there was a Kasana Guest House, a
permanent
construction
in
existence,
besides A Dharm Kanta and an office
(private), where a property dealership was
established. The remainder of the plot was
surrounded by a boundary-wall. It is the
petitioner's
further
case
that
upon
information being sought from the office of
the
Land
Acquisition
Officer
(Joint
Organization), Meerut under the Right to
Information Act about the status of
payment of compensation to the landowner
relating to the land in dispute, the answer
was that the awarded compensation had not
been deposited in Court. This information
was given on 17.12.2016 and is on record
as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition.

7. The petitioner further asserts that
though the land in dispute was acquired by
the State for the development of the
scheme, known as Shatabdi Nagar Awasiya
Yojna, by the Development Authority, they
never took steps to take possession thereof.
No compensation was also paid to the
petitioner. There is a pointed reference to
certain resolutions of the Development
Authority's Board dated 21.10.1999 and
19.12.2011, where it was resolved that such
land that has house/ constructions be
released from acquisition as it was not
required any more. It is pointed out that
regarding the land in dispute, the resolution
dated 21.10.1999 shows that the Board
resolved that the said land be freed from
acquisition as it was not required for the
Shatabdi Nagar Awasiya Yojna. Copies of
the resolutions dated 21.10.1999 and
19.12.2011 are attached as Annexure Nos. 9
and 10, respectively.

8. It must be noticed here that the
resolution of the Board dated 21.10.1999
does not show any decision specifically
with regard to the land in dispute (Gata No.
340/1, measuring 0.3612 hectares). Rather,
there is a supplementary Item No. 13,
where there is an omnibus resolution
proposing to exempt from acquisition 2.56
acres of land in Village Kunda, that was
acquired for the Shatabdi Nagar Awasiya
Yojna. The resolution does not indicate that
it particularly refers to the land in dispute,
or that it proposes to exempt from
acquisition all lands in Village Kunda,
acquired for the scheme aforesaid.

9. It is urged by the petitioner that
after the last of these resolutions was
passed by the Development Authority, the
Act of 2013 came into force and since
possession of the land in dispute was never
taken
from
the
petitioner
or
the
compensation paid in terms of the award
dated 22.02.1990, as last amended on
25.06.1990, the acquisition stood lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
Attention of this Court has also been drawn
to a report of the Additional District
Magistrate
(Land
Acquisition)
dated
13.10.2018, that was drawn up for the
purpose of the State to take a decision in
the matter of lapse claimed by the
petitioner under Section 24(2) of the Act of
2013. The said report is said to have been
made by the Additional District Magistrate
(Land Acquisition), Meerut after hearing
the
petitioner
and
the
Development
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Authority. A copy of this report dated
13.10.2018 is on record as Annexure No.
12 to the writ petition. The said report is
asserted to have been forwarded to the
State Government. It appears that the
directions of this Court carried in the order
dated
02.03.2017
passed
in
Writ-C
No.34122 of 2015, were not carried to their
logical conclusion promptly by the State
and no decision was taken. This led the
petitioner to file a contempt application,
wherein
notice
was
issued
to
the
respondents. It is the petitioner's case that
the contempt rule did not avail and the
petitioner was driven to bring another writ
petition being Writ-C No.28526 of 2021,
where a prayer was made that a mandamus
be issued to the State Government to take
appropriate decision for exemption of the
land in dispute on the basis of the report
made by the A.D.M. (L.A.), Meerut dated
13.10.2018.
The
said
petition
was
entertained and the respondents were
required to file a counter affidavit.
However, before Writ-C No.28526 of 2021
could
proceed
further,
the
State
Government rejected the petitioner's claim,
seeking a declaration about lapse, relating
to the land in dispute under Section 24(2)
of the Act of 2013 vide order dated
26.05.2022.

10. This petition has been preferred
challenging the aforesaid order, which shall
be called hereinafter as 'the impugned
order'.

11. Before us, Mr. Vivek Saran,
learned Counsel for the petitioner has
emphasized the fact that in writing the
impugned order, the State Government has
ignored from consideration the fact that
physical possession of the land in dispute
was not taken from the petitioner, pursuant
to the proceedings initiated under the Act of
1894 until enforcement of the Act of 2013,
and further that a period of five years and
much more had elapsed from the date of
the award, under the Act of 1894, when the
Act of 2013 came into force, without the
petitioner being paid compensation, due
under the award. It is emphasized by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order has been passed ignoring
from consideration the resolutions dated
21.10.1999 and 19.12.2011, proposing to
exempt from acquisition the acquired land,
including the land in dispute, whereon the
residents of the village concerned had
constructed houses, or as said in the
resolution of the year 1999, exempt 2.56
acres of land in Village Kunda. It is also
argued that the impugned order is based on
a unilateral report made by the Collector,
where the petitioner has not been given any
opportunity of hearing.

12. Mr. Rajeev Singh, learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. J.N.
Maurya, learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the Development Authority, on
the other hand, submitted that the land in
dispute is an acquired land of the State, that
has vested in the State, free from all
encumbrances long ago. It has been
transferred to the Development Authority
and it is up to them when, how and in what
manner they would utilize different parts of
the large tracts of the acquired land, spread
across five villages. They have urged that
case of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act
of 2013 is not even remotely established.

13. We have carefully considered the
submissions made at the Bar and perused
the record.

14. It is not in dispute that the land in
dispute was acquired by the State for the
9 All. Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
319
purpose of a residential scheme to be
developed by the Development Authority.
The acquisition was proposed through a
notification dated 14.08.1987 under Section
4 read with Section 17(1) of the Act of
1894 followed by a declaration under
Section 6(1) read with Section 17(4) of the
Act of 1894. The invocation of Section
17(1) followed by Section 17(4) shows that
considering the urgency involved, inquiry
under Section 5-A was dispensed with.
Possession was immediately taken under
Section 17(2) and the land in dispute vested
in the State, free from all encumbrances.
Award in this case was passed on
22.02.1990,
which
was
amended
on
15.03.1990 and further on 25.06.1990. The
Collector has recorded it as a fact that the
State transferred possession of the land in
dispute (Gata No. 340/1, measuring 0-103) to the Development Authority. The title
in the name of the Development Authority
has been entered in the revenue records.

15. In this regard, we must remark
that in aid of the decision taken by the State
Government upon the petitioner's claim of
lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of
the Act of 2013, there is a report dated
16.11.2017 submitted by the Lekhpal to the
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Land
Acquisition), Joint Organization, Meerut.
The said report bears out with the finding
recorded in the order impugned that the
land in dispute was recorded in the revenue
records in the name of the 'Meerut
Development Authority Shatabdi Nagar
Awasiya Yojna'. For a fact, therefore, it is
very difficult to accept the petitioner's
contention that possession of the land in
dispute was not taken from her. The
petitioner does not dispute the fact that the
land in dispute was acquired as part of an
acquisition for the Shatabdi Nagar Awasiya
Yojna, that involved acquisition of large
tracts of land, spread across five villages.
The acquisition was completed by invoking
urgency
clause
under
Section
17(1),
dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A
of the Act of 1894. In the circumstances,
possession of the land in dispute, along
with all the land acquired, would have to be
done by the State by drawing the
memorandum
of
possession
or
the
panchnama. This kind of a panchnama is
not to be signed by each individual
landholder. It is signed by the relevant
Authorities of the State and possession of
the land is taken under it. It leads to vesting
of the acquired land, free from all
encumbrances under Section 17(2) of the
Act of 1894.

16. If some of the individual, who
was the owner of the land in possession at
the time of acquisition, continues in
possession, may be by building a house, or
raising some other construction, the act of
the person continuing in possession, would
be trespass; it would not be evidence of
possession, not being taken in the context
of proceedings under Sections 4(1) and
6(1) of the Act of 1894, invoking Section
17(1).
The
aforesaid
issue
fell
for
consideration consideration of a Division
Bench of this Court in Shyoraj Singh and
another v. State of U.P. and others, 2021
SCC OnLine All 873, where their
Lordships following the decision of the
Supreme Court in Indore Development
Authority v. Manoharlal and others,
(2020) 8 SCC 129, held:

"20. The issue as to what is meant
by "possession of the land by the State after
its acquisition" has also been considered by
Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal and others AIR 2020 SC
1496. It is opined therein that after the
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
acquisition of land and passing of award,
the land vests in the State free from all
encumbrances. The vesting of land with the
State is with possession. Any person
retaining the possession thereafter has to be
treated trespasser. When large chunk of
land is acquired, the State is not supposed
to put some person or police force to retain
the possession and start cultivating on the
land till it is utilized. The Government is
also not supposed to start residing or
physically occupying the same once
process of the acquisition is complete. If
after the process of acquisition is complete
and land vest in the State free from all
encumbrances with possession, any person
retaining the land or any re-entry made by
any person is nothing else but trespass on
the State land. Relevant paragraphs 244,
245 and 256 are extracted below:

"244. Section 16 of the Act of
1894 provided that possession of land
may be taken by the State Government
after passing of an award and thereupon
land vest free from all encumbrances in
the State Government. Similar are the
provisions made in the case of urgency in
Section 17(1). The word "possession" has
been used in the Act of 1894, whereas in
Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, the
expression "physical possession" is used.
It
is
submitted
that
drawing
of
panchnama for taking over the possession
is not enough when the actual physical
possession remained with the landowner
and Section 24(2) requires actual physical
possession to be taken, not the possession
in any other form. When the State has
acquired the land and award has been
passed,
land
vests
in
the
State
Government free from all encumbrances.
The act of vesting of the land in the State
is with possession, any person retaining
the possession, thereafter, has to be
treated as trespasser and has no right to
possess the land which vests in the State
free from all encumbrances.

245. The question which arises
whether there is any difference between
taking possession under the Act of 1894
and the expression "physical possession"
used in Section 24(2). As a matter of fact,
what was contemplated under the Act of
1894, by taking the possession meant
only physical possession of the land.
Taking over the possession under the Act
of 2013 always amounted to taking over
physical possession of the land. When the
State Government acquires land and
drawns up a memorandum of taking
possession, that amounts to taking the
physical possession of the land. On the
large chunk of property or otherwise
which is acquired, the Government is not
supposed to put some other person or the
police force in possession to retain it and
start cultivating it till the land is used by
it for the purpose for which it has been
acquired.
The
Government
is
not
supposed to start residing or to physically
occupy it once possession has been taken
by drawing the inquest proceedings for
obtaining possession thereof. Thereafter,
if any further retaining of land or any reentry is made on the land or someone
starts cultivation on the open land or
starts residing in the outhouse, etc., is
deemed to be the trespasser on land
which in possession of the State. The
possession of trespasser always inures for
the benefit of the real owner that is the
State Government in the case.

xxxx

256. Thus, it is apparent that
vesting is with possession and the statute
has provided under Sections 16 and 17 of
the Act of 1894 that once possession is
taken, absolute vesting occurred. It is an
indefeasible right and vesting is with
possession thereafter. The vesting specified
9 All. Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
321
under Section 16, takes place after various
steps, such as, notification under Section 4,
declaration under Section 6, notice under
Section 9, award under Section 11 and then
possession. The statutory provision of
vesting of property absolutely free from all
encumbrances has to be accorded full
effect. Not only the possession vests in the
State but all other encumbrances are also
removed forthwith. The title of the
landholder ceases and the state becomes the
absolute owner and in possession of the
property. Thereafter there is no control of
the landowner over the property. He cannot
have any animus to take the property and to
control it. Even if he has retained the
possession or otherwise trespassed upon it
after possession has been taken by the
State, he is a trespasser and such possession
of trespasser enures for his benefit and on
behalf of the owner." (emphasis supplied)

17. In the background of the aforesaid
well established legal proposition in cases
of acquisition concluded under the Act of
1894, invoking the provisions of Sections
17(1) and 17(4), it is difficult to accept the
petitioner's contention that possession was
never taken. Moreover in this case, there is
documentary
evidence
to
show
that
possession was taken and the revenue
records were corrected. The Lekhpal's
report shows that the land in dispute is
recorded in the name of the 'Meerut
Development Authority Shatabdi Nagar
Awasiya Yojna', which is evidence enough
of possession being taken by the State and
transferred to the Development Authority.

18. We are, therefore, not inclined to
accept the petitioner's case that possession
of the land in dispute was never physically
taken so as to bring into existence one of
the
conditions
(not
taking
physical
possession) entitling the petitioner to claim
lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act of
2013 upon its enforcement. The other
condition about the compensation not being
paid to the petitioner, though no longer in
itself enough to entitle the petitioner to
claim lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act
of 2013 is also not established on facts.

19. It has been recorded in the
impugned order that due compensation in
respect of the land in dispute has been
deposited in the Meerut Treasury in the
account of revenue deposit. The contention
of the petitioner that there is no deposit
made in Court is no longer the requirement
of the law to prevent lapse under Section
24(2) of the Act of 2013 in view of the
decision of the Supreme Court in Indore
Development Authority's case (supra).

20. A reading of the impugned order
shows that in terms of the award that was
made for the large tracts of land acquired, a
total sum of ₹37.73 crores was payable by
the Development Authority. In satisfaction
of the said award, the requisite sum of
money was deposited by the Development
Authority in parts up to 19.07.2010, out of
which 98%, that is to say, ₹36.49 crores
was paid to the land oustees. It is, thus,
evident that the sum of money due under
the
award
was
deposited
by
the
Development Authority with the Meerut
Treasury in the account of revenue deposit.
The finding, therefore, recorded in the
order impugned that compensation relating
to the land in dispute was deposited in the
Meerut Treasury in the account of revenue
deposit is well founded. This deposit has
clearly been made on or before 19.07.2010
and much before the enforcement of the
Act of 2013.

21. It is, thus, evident that the
compensation due under the award was
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deposited in the Government Treasury prior
to enforcement of the Act of 2013 and
physical possession of the land in dispute
was also taken under the Act of 1894,
which was handed over to the Development
Authority on 06.01.1998.

22. It must be remarked that it is not
necessary that the compensation in terms of
the award passed under the Act of 1894 be
deposited in Court prior to enforcement of
the Act of 2013. It would suffice if the
requisite compensation is deposited in the
Government
Treasury
prior
to
the
enforcement of the Act aforesaid. This
position of the law would be clear from the
holding in Indore Development Authority
(supra), which reads:

366. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we answer the questions as
under:

366.1. Under the provisions of
Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not
made as on 1-1-2014, the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no
lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to
be determined under the provisions of the
2013 Act.

366.2. In case the award has
been passed within the window period of
five years excluding the period covered
by an interim order of the court, then
proceedings shall continue as provided
under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act
under the 1894 Act as if it has not been
repealed.

366.3. The word "or" used in
Section 24(2) between possession and
compensation has to be read as "nor" or
as "and". The deemed lapse of land
acquisition proceedings under Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where
due to inaction of authorities for five
years or more prior to commencement of
the said Act, the possession of land has
not been taken nor compensation has
been paid. In other words, in case
possession has been taken, compensation
has not been paid then there is no lapse.
Similarly, if compensation has been paid,
possession has not been taken then there
is no lapse.

366.4. The expression "paid" in
the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act does not include a deposit of
compensation in court. The consequence
of non-deposit is provided in the proviso
to Section 24(2) in case it has not been
deposited with respect to majority of
landholdings
then
all
beneficiaries
(landowners)
as
on
the
date
of
notification for land acquisition under
Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled
to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the
obligation under Section 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been
fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the
said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
compensation (in court) does not result in
the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
In case of non-deposit with respect to the
majority of holdings for five years or
more, compensation under the 2013 Act
has to be paid to the "landowners" as on
the
date
of
notification
for
land
acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894
Act.

366.5. In case a person has been
tendered the compensation as provided
under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is
not open to him to claim that acquisition
has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to
non-payment
or
non-deposit
of
compensation in court. The obligation to
pay is complete by tendering the amount
under Section 31(1). The landowners who
had refused to accept compensation or
who
sought
reference
for
higher
9 All. C/M S.N. Sen Balika Vidyalaya Post Graduate College, The Mall, Kanpur Nagar & Anr.
 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
323
compensation, cannot claim that the
acquisition proceedings had lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

366.6. The proviso to Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as
part of Section 24(2), not part of Section
24(1)(b).

366.7. The mode of taking
possession under the 1894 Act and as
contemplated under Section 24(2) is by
drawing of inquest report/memorandum.
Once award has been passed on taking
possession under Section 16 of the 1894
Act, the land vests in State there is no
divesting provided under Section 24(2) of
the 2013 Act, as once possession has been
taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).

366.8. The provisions of Section
24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of
proceedings
are
applicable
in
case
authorities have failed due to their inaction
to take possession and pay compensation
for five years or more before the 2013 Act
came into force, in a proceeding for land
acquisition pending with the authority
concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of
subsistence of interim orders passed by
court has to be excluded in the computation
of five years.

366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act does not give rise to new cause of
action to question the legality of concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date
of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-12014. It does not revive stale and timebarred claims and does not reopen
concluded
proceedings
nor
allow
landowners to question the legality of mode
of taking possession to reopen proceedings
or mode of deposit of compensation in the
treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.

 (emphasis by Court)

23. In view of what has been said
above, no good ground made out to
interfere with the order impugned.

24. This petition fails and is
dismissed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 323
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 23497 of 2022

C/M S.N. Sen Balika Vidyalaya Post
Graduate College, The Mall, Kanpur Nagar
& Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sri G.K. Singh (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sarvesh Kumar

A. UP St.Universities Act, 1973 - Sections
57 & 58 - UP Higher Education Services
Commission Act, 1980 - Section15(2) -
Committee of Management dispute -
Appointment of authorized controller by
the St.Government - Allegation of failure
in appointing the respondent as principal
even
after
recommendation
of
Commission
-
Power
to
assess
the
qualification, how far lie in the committee
- Held, it is not in the domain of the
Committee of Management to assess the
eligibility and qualification of the selected
candidate and such power vests only with
the Commission - The St. Government,
while exercising the powers u/s 58 of the
Act
of
1973
to
appoint
authorized
controller,
has
complied
with
the
requirements
of
the
provisions
-