1. Heard Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 26.2.2020 passed on a representation made by the petitioner after a direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner has further prayed for determination of compensation as per Section 24(1)(a) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short '"Act of 2013").
3. The case has a checkered history, thus needs to be given in detail but before that, it is necessary to indicate that the acquisition process for the land in dispute was initiated by the respondents by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "Act of 1894") on 30.1.1989. The petitioner purchased the land on 25.4.1989 i.e. subsequent to the notification under Section 4 of theof 1894.
4. The fact aforesaid is relevant in view of the law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and others v. Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 8003 of 2019 and connected appeal decided on 14.2.2019. It is held that purchaser of the land, after the notification under Section 4 of theof 1894 has no right to challenge the acquisition.
5. The detailed facts relevant to the case are that after a notification under Section 4 of theof 1894, notification under Sections 6 and 17 of theof 1894 were issued on 8.2.1990. The award thereupon was passed on 29.2.1992. A litigation in reference to the notification under Sections 6 and 17 of theof 1894 came before this Court and decided vide the judgment dated 20.8.1993. The notifications were interfered, though prior to it, award was passed on 29.2.1992. It was not challenged by amending the writ petitioner by filing a fresh writ petition. The fact aforesaid is relevant for the reason that pursuant to the award, land of the petitioner was possessed for construction of 125 feet wide road. In the revenue record also name of the Agra Development Authority was recorded in place of the erstwhile land holders for 0.2400 hectare of land out of 2 Bigha 15 Biswa and 17 Biswansi of Gata No. 158. It is however a fact that subsequently again notification under Sections 6 and 17 was issued on 16.1.1995 but no award was passed within two years.
6. In the light of the aforesaid, the prayer of the petitioner in the representation was to treat the acquisition as lapsed. It is reflected in the impugned order and for that relevant portion is quoted hereunder-:
7. The prayer to treat acquisition to have lapsed for the land used for construction of 125 feet wide road was not accepted. In absence of the lapse of the acquisition pursuant to the award, the compensation was not permitted under the of 2013. The relevant impugned portion of the order is quoted hereunder to show discussion-:
8. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is subsequent purchaser of the land. Thus, he has not challenged the acquisition or, for that, prayer for its lapse but asking for the compensation under the of 2013. To support the argument, a copy of representation has not been submitted though impugned order was passed in reference of the prayer by the petitioner Samiti for lapse of acquisition. The relevant of the impugned order para has been quoted earlier to show prayer of the Samiti.
9. Our attention was drawn towards Section 24 (1) of theof 2013 to indicate that if process initiated under the of 1894 is not completed with passing of the award, then it may continue but the compensation has to be determined under the of 2013. The claim for compensation has thus been made alleging that after the process initiated for acquisition of land under the of 1894, award was not passed, thereby petitioner is entitle to the compensation under Section 24 (1) of theof 2013.
10. To be very specific and precise, learned counsel stated that petitioner, being subsequent purchaser, is not challenging the acquisition or even praying for lapse of the acquisition. The statement aforesaid has been made cautiously because Court indicated that in absence of a lapse of the acquisition, petitioner would not be entitle to the compensation under the of 2013 in a case where award was in fact passed on 29.2.1992. An award cannot be ipso-facto taken to have lapsed unless it is so declared.
11. The position, as is obtained in this case is that an award was passed on 29.2.1992 and that- is not being challenged or sought to have lapsed. The decision of the Government for lapse is for the land other than involved in this case. It is as per decision dated 26.7.2010.
12. It is true that subsequent to the award aforesaid, notification under Section 6 of theof 1894 was issued on 16.1.1995 and taking aforesaid into consideration, a prayer in the representation was made to treat the acquisition to have lapsed as no award was passed till 15.1.1997. The Government took a decision to lapse the acquisition other than for the land falling under 125 feet wide road i.e. the land in dispute, thus award for it stands. The possession of it was taken followed by entry of Agra Development Authority in the revenue record and that too in the year 2003 itself. A challenge to mutation of entry was not by the petitioner or the erstwhile land holder.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when notification under Sections 6 and 17 of theof 1894 were quashed by the judgment dated 20.8.1993 then the award dated 29.2.1992 should be treated to be illegal.
14. The prayer aforesaid is nothing but to treat the award dated 29.2.1992 to be illegal or as if it was never passed after the quashing of the notification under Section 6 of theof 1894. The issue aforesaid has been raised by the subsequent purchaser though has no right for it. It has also come on record that in a writ petition No. 31481 of 1992, this Court in its order dated 5.1.2000 directed for payment of compensation as per the award dated 29.2.1992. On an S.L.P. thereupon before the Apex Court, direction was given on 7.2.2001 for re-determination of compensation pursuant to the award after hearing the parties. This has been mentioned in the order dated 26.7.2010. The fact aforesaid shows a direction for compensation in pursuance to the award dated 29.2.1992. It could not have been if acquisition has lapsed.
15. The question before us would be as to whether petitioner can seek award dated 29.2.1992 to be ineffective or illegal when admittedly he is purchaser of the land subsequent to the notification under Section 4 of theof 1894. It is more so when counsel for the petitioner has admitted at Bar that he is not challenging the award in any manner or praying for lapse of the acquisition or to treat it to be illegal.
16. In those circumstances, what remains is a fact that award in this case was passed on 29.2.1992 and never interfered by the Court. Even the Government did not treat acquisition to have lapsed for the land in question, thus, even if further process for acquisition of the land was taken, it cannot result in treating earlier award to be a nullity for the land in question without a challenge to it. The Government was also cautious to take a decision about the lapse of the acquisition for the land other than used for the construction of 125 feet wide road. Thus, even the Government has not treated the acquisition of the land in question to have lapsed. The decision of the Government is not under challenge, thus for the land in dispute i.e. 0.2400 hectare, claim under the of 2013 cannot sustain.
17. In view of the factual position, as indicated above, what remains an award for acquisition of land of 125 feet wide road without an order for its lapse. It was otherwise recorded in the name of Agra Vikas Pradhikaran in the year 2003 after taking its possession and no challenge to it has been made. The period intervening is now of seventeen years. The delay is also an issue going against the petitioner.
18. It is also a fact that land in dispute was never recorded in the name of the petitioner and that too even after its purchase though the other part of the land has been recorded in its name.
19. The petitioner has not enclosed a copy of the representation as admitted by counsel. It was relevant to find out whether representation was with a prayer for lapse of the acquisition proceedings, because at many places, the impugned order makes a reference of the prayer of the petitioner to declare the acquisition to have lapsed as no award was passed within two years. A prayer of lapse of the acquisition or for that a challenge to the acquisition proceeding cannot sustain in the hands of the petitioner in the light of the judgment in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra) being a subsequent purchaser.
20. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the impugned order with a direction to compute the compensation under Section 24 (1) of theof 2013.
21. The writ petition is dismissed for the reasons given above.
