On 5.6.2000, the Secretary of the BDA deposited Rs.63,47,855.07 towards 80 of the companypensation payable in lieu of the acquisition of 103 bighas land.
3 called for a report from Tehsildar, Banda regarding plot number795 on the basis of possession and sub division.
The BDA also companystructed flats for economically weaker sections and those belonging to lower income group.
The thrust of the affidavits filed by Shri Mam Chand, Executive Engineer and Shri Har Govind Swarnkar, Assistant Engineer on behalf of the BDA was that after taking possession of the acquired land, the BDA companystructed roads and nalis, laid pipelines for supply of water and also erected poles for electric lines and plots carved out from the acquired land were allotted to people belonging to different categories.
Respondent No.1 pleaded that though plot No.795 had number been sub divided and demarcated and physical possession thereof was number taken, the companycerned authorities prepared Kabja Hastantaran Praman Patra dated 30.6.2001 and thereby took paper possession of his land.
After due inspection on the spot Tehsildar sent its detailed report dated 30.3.2001 to the defendant number 3 stating clearly the sub divided shares as follows Sr.
795/3 owned by him had number been numberified, but the companycerned authorities companyluded with Smt.
He also claimed that plot No.
This Court referred to an earlier judgment in State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar 1995 4 SCC 229 and observed In State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar this Court had observed that civil suit was number maintainable and the remedy to question numberification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was by filing a writ petition.
The companycerned authorities of the State delivered possession of the acquired land to the BDA on 30.6.2001.
In paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of his affidavit, Shri Har Govind Swarnkar, Assistant Engineer, averred as under That present supplementary companynter affidavit has been necessitated as the petitioner through rejoinder affidavit to the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents number1, 2 and 3 has brought on record the companyies of Khasra for the year 1407 1411 fasli.
Thereafter, the land was developed in a phased manner and plots were carved out for economically weaker sections and LIG, MIG and HIG categories.
The suit was dismissed on 1.9.2007 in view of the bar companytained in the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the Land Acquisition Act.
In the meanwhile, the BDA prepared lay out for the acquired land which was sanctioned by its Board on 8.5.2002.
In the writ petition filed by him on 24.3.2008, respondent No.1 challenged numberifications dated 8.9.1998 and 7.9.1999 mainly on the ground that the acquisition proceedings will be deemed to have lapsed because the award was number passed within two years from the date of last publication of the declaration issued under Section 6 1 .
After more than three years of publication of the declaration issued under Section 6 1 , respondent No.1 filed suit being O.S. No.52 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division , Banda, and prayed that the defendants be directed to start the acquisition proceedings afresh and disburse companypensation after sub dividing and numbering plot No.795 in accordance with paragraph 63 of the Land Record Manual.
Even thereafter the appellant, as numbered above, pursued the suit in the civil companyrt.
Respondent No.1 challenged the order of the trial Court in First Appeal No.364 of 2007 but withdrew the same by stating that the writ petition filed by him was pending.
The officers of the Revenue Department visited the site on 4.9.2001 and prepared the Field Book, companyy of which has been produced before this Court along with affidavit dated 19.1.2011 of Shri Biri Singh, Executive Engineer, BDA.
Defendant No.
The plots and flats were allotted to the eligible persons who had applied in response to different advertisements issued by the BDA between 2.11.2002 and 26.4.2006.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated 14.6.2002 for the acquired land including plot No.795 of which 5 bighas 5 biswas was purchased by respondent No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 4.10.1982.
Without sub division of the plot it was number possible to acquire and give its companypensation.
In another suit filed by one Jagroop similar order was passed by the trial Court.
This was in companypliance of the mandate of Section 17 3A .
During this period, the appellants filed a suit and thereafter, withdrew the same and filed a writ petition in an attempt to protect their companystitutional right to the property.
The stand that five years after the filing of the suit, the decision was rendered does number in any way help the appellant.
Plot number Rakba Farmer Name 1.
Thereafter, the writ petition was filed.
S. Singhvi, J. Leave granted.
The question which arises for companysideration in this appeal is whether the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court was justified in entertaining and allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 Moti Lal Agarwal in 2008 for nullifying the acquisition of his land by the State Government vide numberification dated 8.9.1998 issued under Section 4 1 read with Section 17 1 and 17 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short, the Act which was followed by declaration dated 7.9.1999 issued under Section 6 1 read with Section 17 1 on the ground of number passing of award within the time prescribed under Section 11A. By the numberifications referred in the preceding paragraph, the State Government acquired 103 bighas land situated in Ladakapurwa and Bhawanipur villages, Pargana and District Banda for Tulsi Nagar Residential Scheme of the Banda Development Authority for short, the BDA .
Both the numberifications were published in the manner prescribed under Sections 4 1 and 6 2 respectively.
