# Veer Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 463 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-03-04 - **Bench:** Krishna Murari, Amar Singh Chauhan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/veer-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43472 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote were notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no award was ever made for these specific plots and physical possession was also not taken due to the existence of their residential abadi. They relied on Naksha-11 and RTI information from the Special Land Acquisition Officer which showed that while the total khata area was 21-13-12 bigha, the award covered only 19-12-12 bigha, and the disputed 2-1-0 bigha was excluded from the award. The NOIDA Authority claimed that the award had been made and possession taken, but it failed to produce any record showing that these three plots were included in the award. The Court found that there was no specific denial of the petitioners' claim that these plots were excluded, nor any explanation for their omission from Naksha-11. Consequently, the Court concluded that no award was ever made for the three disputed plots. Applying Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Bihar State Housing Board v. State of Bihar and Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., the Court held that an award must be made within two years from the last date of publication of the Section 6 declaration, which in this case expired on 01.04.1991. Since no award was made for the disputed plots within this period, the acquisition proceedings for those plots automatically lapsed by operation of law. The Court further rejected NOIDA's argument based on Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, holding that this provision cannot revive an acquisition which had already lapsed under Section 11-A of the 1894 Act. Accordingly, the High Court declared that the acquisition of Plot Nos. 121/3, 125 and 666 had lapsed, allowed the writ petition, and directed that the lands stood released from acquisition, without any order as to costs. List of Cases cited: 464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 1.Bihar State Housing Board v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 1 ## Text 3 All. Veer Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 463 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J. THE HON'BLE AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J. Writ C No.- 64718 of 2008 Veer Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Shri Madan Mohan Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Shri R.P. Singh Held - The petitioners, who were co-sharers of Khata No. 529 in village Khoda, Ghaziabad, challenged the acquisition of three plots-Plot Nos. 121/3, 125 and 666-on the ground that although these lands were notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no award was ever made for these specific plots and physical possession was also not taken due to the existence of their residential abadi. They relied on Naksha-11 and RTI information from the Special Land Acquisition Officer which showed that while the total khata area was 21-13-12 bigha, the award covered only 19-12-12 bigha, and the disputed 2-1-0 bigha was excluded from the award. The NOIDA Authority claimed that the award had been made and possession taken, but it failed to produce any record showing that these three plots were included in the award. The Court found that there was no specific denial of the petitioners' claim that these plots were excluded, nor any explanation for their omission from Naksha-11. Consequently, the Court concluded that no award was ever made for the three disputed plots. Applying Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Bihar State Housing Board v. State of Bihar and Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., the Court held that an award must be made within two years from the last date of publication of the Section 6 declaration, which in this case expired on 01.04.1991. Since no award was made for the disputed plots within this period, the acquisition proceedings for those plots automatically lapsed by operation of law. The Court further rejected NOIDA's argument based on Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, holding that this provision cannot revive an acquisition which had already lapsed under Section 11-A of the 1894 Act. Accordingly, the High Court declared that the acquisition of Plot Nos. 121/3, 125 and 666 had lapsed, allowed the writ petition, and directed that the lands stood released from acquisition, without any order as to costs. List of Cases cited: 464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 1.Bihar State Housing Board v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 1 2. Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by LRs v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 85 (Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.) 1. Petitioners are co-sharers having transferable rights over 19 plots of khata no. 529 having total area 21-13-12 situate in village Khoda, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad, which was subject matter of acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1894') along with other lands of different tenure holders situate in the said village. 2. Dispute in the present writ petition is confined to plot nos. 121/3 area 0-3-0, plot no. 125 area 0-17-0 and plot no. 666 area 1-1-0 (hereinafter referred to as the 'land in dispute'). 3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act 1894 was issued on 17.03.1988 published in the Gazette of U.P. on 19.03.1988. The said notification was also published in two newspapers on 01.04.1998 and 02.04.1988, respectively. Declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1894 was issued on 11.07.1988. An award in respect of the acquired land is alleged to have been made on 01.02.1991. 4. Specific case set up by the petitioner is that no award in respect of the plots in dispute namely, plot nos. 121/3, 125 & 666 was made. It has specifically been pleaded that actual physical possession of the aforesaid 3 plots was also not taken inasmuch as the 'abadi' of the petitioners was existing thereon. To support the aforesaid averments, the petitioners have filed a copy of 'Naksha-11' relating to Khata no. 529 as annexure 2 to the writ petition. A perusal whereof goes to show that out of the total area 21-13-12 of Khata no. 529 an area of 2-1-0 has been reduced and award has been made only in respect of an area 19-12-12. An area of 2-1-0 reduced from the total area of the khata is the sum total of area of plot nos. 121/3, 125 & 666. Reference may also be made to annexure 3, which is information supplied by the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide letter dated 08.08.2008 to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act that possession of plot nos. 121/3 & 125 have not been taken over on account of existence of 'abadi' thereon though possession of plot no. 666 has been transferred in favour of the Noida authority. 5. Based on the allegations that no award has been made in respect of 3 plots involved in the dispute and possession thereof also has not been taken over, instant writ petition was filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the land from the acquisition proceedings treating the same to have lapsed in view of Section 11A of the Act, 1894. Subsequently, after the enforcement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2013'), which came into effect from 01.01.2014, further grounds were added by way of amendment application that acquisition proceedings 3 All. Veer Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 465 also stand lapsed in view of Section 24 of the Act, 2013, since possession has not been taken by the respondents. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Noida Authority denying the allegations made in the writ petition. It is stated in the counter affidavit that possession of the 3 plots in dispute was taken over by the State Government and handed over to NOIDA Authority and award in respect thereof has also been made. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed wherein making reference of 'Naksha-11' it has been stated that compensation of Rs.35,75,987.08 has been received by the petitioners and after receiving the compensation, land acquisition reference no.229 of 1992 of khata no.529 and 532 was preferred by the petitioners before the 10th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, who has decided the same vide judgment and order dated 06.04.1998 and compensation amount has been enhanced from Rs.70/- per sq. Yard to Rs. 106/- per sq. Yard and enhanced amount of compensation has been deposited in the reference court. It is also alleged that against the judgment and order dated 6.4.1998, a First Appeal no. 565 of 1998 has been preferred before this Court which is pending. 7. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties goes to show that categorical averments have been made by petitioners in paragraph 8 and 9 of the writ petition that Special Land Acquisition Officer did not make award in respect of the 3 plots in dispute and the area of the said 3 plots were excluded from the total area of Khata no. 529 in 'Naksha-11'. Paragraphs 8 & 9 of the writ petition are being reproduced hereunder: "8. That the Special Land Acquisition Officer while making award left the land in dispute and did not make award of the land in dispute i.e. plot no. 121/3 (Area 0-3-0), 125 (area 0-17-0) and plot no. 666 (Area 1-1-0) having a total area of 2-1-0. This fact may be well seen from the copy of Naksha - 11 relating to Khata No. 529 of the petitioners which is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition. 9.That a bare perusal of the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer would make it clear that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has made award in respect of 1912-12 Bigha out of total area of land of 21-13-12 Bigha and as such no award in respect of land in dispute having an area of 2-1-0 has been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer." 8. Reply to the aforesaid paragraphs is contained in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under: "15. That the contents of paragraph 8, 9, 10 & 11 of the writ petition are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the declaration of award is concerned with the Special Land Acquisition Officer regarding which no comment is needed from the answering respondent as for regarding possession of the land in dispute it is submitted that possession has already been taken. It is emphatically denied that there was any existence of abadi as has been alleged by the petitioners. The petitioners have not annexed any proof in respect of existence of alleged residential houses and shops. After take over possession of the 466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES acquired land of continuance of erstwhile owners with the possession is illegal and unauthorized." 9. A perusal of the reply in the counter affidavit quoted above goes to show that there is no specific denial of the allegations made in the writ petition that no award in respect of the 3 plots in dispute namely, plot nos. 121/3, 125 and 666 having a total area 2-1-0 was made and also there is no denial or even reference to the fact stated in the writ petition that an area 2-1-0 which is the total sum of the area of 3 plots in dispute was reduced from the total area of Khata no. 529 in 'Naksha-11'. Even in the supplementary counter affidavit though a reference has been made to 'Naksha-11' but there is no explanation with respect to reduction of an area 2-1-0 from the total area of khata no. 529. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the Noida Authority, during the course of argument, has failed to refer to any such material on record which may go to contradict the categorical averments made by the petitioners that no award was made in respect of the 3 plots in dispute and the area of the said 3 plots was reduced from the total area of Khata no. 529, while declaring the award. 11. In the facts and circumstances, the irresistible conclusion is that though plots no. 121/3, 125 and 666 belonging to the petitioners were subject matter of acquisition but no award in respect thereof was declared. 12. Now we proceed to examine the effect of not making award in respect of the three plots in dispute on the acquisition proceedings. Section 11A of the Act, 1894 prescribes the period within which an award shall be made and also the consequence of not making award within the prescribed period of limitation. The said Section reads as under: "11-A. Period within which an award shall be made. - (1) The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation. - In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded." 13. Section 11A of the Act, 1894 clearly provides that an award is to be made within two years from the date of publication of the declaration and the consequence of not declaring award within that period is that the entire proceedings of the acquisition of the land shall lapse. In view of the explanation in computing the period of two years, the period during which any stay order is passed by a court, is liable to be excluded. 3 All. Veer Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 467 14. In the case in hand, as would become apparent from the award itself that the publication of declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1894 was made in the gazette on 11.7.1988 and the same was published in the newspaper on 25.7.1988 and 26.7.1988 respectively and the public notice of the substance of the declaration was made on 01.03.1989. There is not even an averment in the pleadings that there was any stay order of any court of law operating in respect of the notification and thus the explanation to Section 11A is not at all attracted. In view of the law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Housing Board v. State of Bihar and others, (2003) 10 SCC 1 and Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by LRs. V. State of U.P. & others, (2007) 5 SCC 85, the period of 2 years is to be reckoned from the last date of three modes of publication prescribed under section 6(2) which, in the case in hand, is 01.03.1989 when public notice of substance of declaration was made. The period of 2 years expired on 01.04.1991 and the consequence prescribed by Section 11A would automatically follow that the acquisition proceeding in respect of 3 plots in dispute stand lapsed as no award has been made during the prescribed period of limitation. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kunwar Pal Singh (Supra), has observed in paragraph 17 as under: "17. The provisions of Section 11-A are intended to benefit the landowner and ensure that the award is made within a period of two years from the date of the declaration under Section 6. In ordinary course, therefore, when the Government fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government and its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings are still pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section 11-A, the proceedings will lapse. The period of two years referred to in Section 11-A shall be computed by counting from the last of the publication dates, as per the prescribed modes of publication." 15. In view of the facts of the case, where admittedly the award in respect of three plots involved in the dispute in the present writ petition has not been made within the prescribed period of limitation of two years and on expiry of the said period, the acquisition proceedings stand lapsed by operation of law. At this stage, Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the NOIDA Authority tried to save acquisition from lapsing by referring to section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 and urging that since the award has not been made the provisions of Act, 2013 relating to determination of compensation shall become applicable and at best the petitioners are entitled to payment of compensation calculated in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 26 to 30 of the Act, 2013. Section 24(1)(a) relevant for the purpose of the present dispute reads as under: "24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), - 468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (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) ......................... (2) ..........................." 16. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid provisions will not stand attracted in a case where the acquisition proceedings already stand lapsed by operation of law in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act, 1894. The provisions of Section 24(1)(a) can stand attracted only in a case where the proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 are pending at the time of enforcement of the Act, 2013. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, since no award has been made in respect of plot nos. 121/3 area 0-3-0, plot no. 125 area 0-17-0 and plot no. 666 area 1-1-0 situate in village Khoda, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad within the period prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act, 1894, the acquisition proceedings in respect of the said three plots in dispute stand lapsed. 18. Writ petition stands allowed. 19. However, in the facts and circumstances, we do not make any order as to costs. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 14.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MAHENDRA DAYAL, J. U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1927 of 2015 Surendra Pal Kushwaha ...Applicant Versus The State Of U.P & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Applicant: Hemant Kumar Misra, Arti Ganguly Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate The applicant has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and order dated 4.3.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No.3, Unnao in Criminal Revision No.106 of 2012 whereby the revision has been dismissed and the order dated 24.2.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Unnao has been confirmed.