Dilip Gupta and Mukhtar Ahmad, JJ.

1. This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 21 January 2015 passed by the Principal Secretary in the Industrial Development Department of the State Government by which the claim of the petitioner under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 The 2013 Act which came into force on 1 January 2014 has been rejected.

2. The petitioner claims to be having half share in Plot Nos.639, 640 and 653 situated in village Dashara Kherali, Pargana Khurja, in district Bulandshahr. A notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 The Act was issued for acquisition of a large tract of land measuring 118.816 hectares. This notification was published in the gazette on 13 February 1991. This was followed by a declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on 23 March 1991. The award under Section 11 of the Act was made on 20 October 1993. The possession of the plots is said to have been taken on 8 October 1993 and given to the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation, Ghaziabad by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on the same date. The compensation under the award was also paid to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for enhancement of the compensation and the enhanced compensation was also paid to the petitioner.

3. However, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.31157 of 2014 claiming the benefit of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act by asserting that he was still in physical possession of the land. This petition was disposed of on 30 May 2014 with a direction to the State Government to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the application dated 15 January 2014 filed by the petitioner within a period of three months. The application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the order dated 21 January 2015. It is this order that has been assailed in this petition.

4. The Principal Secretary has found as a fact that physical possession of the land had been taken by the State Government and transferred to the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation for planned industrial development in district Bulandshahr. It has also been mentioned in the order that the comments sent by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation indicate that 969 Acres of land situated in four villages had been acquired and in 1994 development work had started on the land but because of resistance by some persons, it was stopped. The Principal Secretary has, therefore, held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Act.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this finding of fact recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner is not in actual physical possession of the land is not correct. It is his submission that even from the possession certificate, all that has been stated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is that the possession has been given to the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation and it does not state that physical possession was first taken by the State Government and then handed over to the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation have, however, submitted that the finding recorded in the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity.

7. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is not in dispute that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 13 February 1991 and that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 23 March 1991. It is also not in dispute that the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act were applied. The petitioner has also stated that the possession certificate was issued on 8 October 1993. What he, however, contends is that the actual physical possession of the land still continues with the petitioner. This assertion of the petitioner has not been found to be true by the Principal Secretary in the impugned order. The U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation had specifically come out with a case that after the physical possession was handed over by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation on 8 October 1993, it started making developments but the same had been stopped because of protests made by some of the erstwhile land owners. The petitioner had received the compensation under the award which was made on 20 October 1993 and also had received the enhanced compensation that was determined in proceedings initiated under Section 18 of the Act. We are, therefore, not satisfied with the assertion made by the petitioner that the petitioner still continues to remain in physical possession of the land.

9. We are also not satisfied with the assertion made by the petitioner that since the possession certificate does not mention that the State had taken possession, the Special Land Acquisition Officer could not have given possession of the land to the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation.

10. The Special Land Acquisition Officer could have given possession of the land only after the possession of the land was taken from the erstwhile owners.

11.The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity which may call for any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.