Allahabad High CourtTejal Uppal vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 15 June, 2021Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Chief Justice, Prakash PadiaHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD\n \n \n\nAFR\n \nChief Justice's Court\n \n\n \nCase :- WRIT - C No. - 9534 of 2021\n \nPetitioner :- Tejal Uppal\n \nRespondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others\n \nCounsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Sharma\n \nCounsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.\n \n\n \nHon'ble Sanjay Yadav,Chief Justice\n \nHon'ble Prakash Padia,J.Per Prakash Padia, J.1.	The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following relief:"A.	Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS or appropriate directions to issue commanding and/or set aside the order dated 12/11/2020 and directed to passed the fresh speaking order after having in the matter (Annexure no. 1)."B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directed to the respondent no. 1 to remitted back the possession as well as title of the land in question to its owner.C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondent no. 1 to consider and passed appropriate order on the representation dated 19/02/2021 submitted by the petitioner expeditiously within a suitable period.  (Annexure no. 16).D. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondent no. 2 to consider and passed appropriate order on the representation dated 12/10/2020 under section 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning andDevelopment Act, 1973 submitted by the petitioner expeditiously within a suitable period. (Annexure no. 17)."2.	The facts as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner and her husband, namely Inder Bir Singh Uppal has purchased certain land, including the land of Khata no. 310, Khasra no. 305M, area 02-05-00 Bigha Pukhta i.e., 0.5580 Hectare situated in village Sadarpur, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.3. It is stated in the writ petition that the dispute in the present writ petition relates only with the land of Khata no. 310, Khasra no. 305M area 02-05-00 Pukhta i.e.  0.5580 Hectare having old khasra nos. 429 & 504. It is further stated by the petitioner that after purchasing the aforesaid land, the petitioner has established a Girls School, in the name and style of Suman Girls Junior High School in the year 1997. In the year 2002, a notification dated 30.3.2002 undersection 4(1)read withsection 17of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1894") was issued. The said notification was published on 15.4.2002 in various news-papers. It is further stated in the writ petition that in view of the urgency clause invoked by the State Government, no objections were invited however the petitioner filed his objection that respondent authorities threatened to demolish the school building. Thereafter a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 20783 of 2002 was filed with a prayer to quash the notification dated 30.3.2002 and to restrain the respondents and their agents from demolishing the school building and taking the possession of the land. The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed off by  the judgment and order dated 20.5.2002.4.	By the aforesaid order dated 20.5.2002 this Court has been pleased to order the State Government to decide the applications of the petitioner for exemption as provided undersection 48of Act of 1894. It is further stated that the aforesaid order was not complied with and the construction of school building was demolished. Thereafter a contempt petition being Contempt Petition No. 3431 of 2002 (Capt. Inder Veer Singh Uppal Vs. Hemant Rao and others) was filed before this Court and notice was issued to the opposite parties on 18.11.2003. In reply to the contempt notice, the reply was filed by the opposite parties enclosing letter dated 03.06.2002 and 25.07.2003. Thereafter the order dated 8.1.2004 passed by the Special Secretary was brought on record, by which the application of the petitioner was rejected and the finding was recorded that the possession of Khasra nos. 302, 305/2 & 306 has already been transferred to the Noida Development Authority on 3.9.2003. A further finding was recorded that there is no school building in the land in dispute. With these findings, the Special Secretary, rejected the application of the petitioner for release of his land from the acquisition. The said order is annexed as annexure-9 to the writ petition.5.	It is further stated by the petitioner that the order dated 8.1.2004 was challenged by the petitioner's husband before this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 21364 of 2004 (Capt. Inder Bir Singh Uppal Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). The said writ petition had been dismissed in default on 31.5.2016 and no recall application for recalling the order dated 31.5.2016 has been filed. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner along with her husband filed a detailed representation/application dated 14.11.2019 claiming benefit ofsection 11(a)of the Act of 1894. The petitioner along with her husband filed Writ Petition no. 40276 of 2019. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2019, with a finding that the petitioner has earlier filed writ petition no. 21364 of 2004 with regard to the direction that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed undersection 11(a)of the Act of 1894, therefore, his land be exempted undersection 48of the Act of 1894. Since, the said writ petition was dismissed on 31.5.2016, the second writ petition was not maintainable. Further findings has been recorded by the Court that the scope ofSection 11(a)has been considered in the case of Gajraj Singh, as the notification dated 30.5.2002 for Village Sadarpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar was also subject matter of Gajraj Singh case and objection tosection 11(a)of the Act of 1894 has been dealt with in that judgment.6.	It is further stated in the writ petition that the award undersection 11of the Act of 1894 was made on 29.1.2010 and no information for the same was given to the petitioner undersection 12(2)of Act of 1894. It is further stated that the amount awarded by award dated 29.1.2020 has been deposited by the Noida Development Authority through challan on 14.2.2017.7.	It is claimed in the writ petition that as this Court in its order dated 10.12.2019 has observed that the petitioner's case is covered by the decision of the case of Gajraj Singh, as such, he is entitled for additional compensation and other benefits, hence she made representations dated 25.12.2019 by registered post on 26.12.2019. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner in his representation has also claimed benefit ofsection 24(2)of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act of 2013'), as the said representation was not being considered by the State, as such, the petitioner again filed Writ Petition No. 8536 of 2020 (Tejpal Uppal vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) which was finally disposed of by order dated 6.3.2020 with a direction to the respondent no. 1, i.e., the State Government to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 11.2.2020. The order dated 6.3.2020 was not complied with as such a Contempt Application No. 4051 of 2020 was filed. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1, after the order of contempt petition dated 20.10.2020 has passed the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 12.11.2020 in a cursory manner without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.8.	Challenging the aforesaid order, a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2240 of 2021 (Tejpal Uppal vs. State of U.P. and Others) was filed which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 28.1.2021. After the order dated 28.1.2021 passed in writ petition no. 2240 of 2021, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 19.2.2021 by registered post for recalling the order dated 12.11.2020, as the said order was passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.9.	Heard learned counsel for the parties.10.	The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.11.2020 on the ground that the abadi land of the petitioner has been acquired by invoking the provisions ofsection 17. The provision ofsection 11(a)of Act of 1894 has not been followed, as such the acquisition proceedings lapsed and the order dated 12.11.2020 is bad in eye of law and the petitioner is entitled for return of her land.11.	It is pertinent to mention that the order dated 12.11.2020 was challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 2240 of 2021. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn without granting any liberty to the petitioner, as such, another writ petition challenging the order dated 12.11.2020 is not maintainable. In so far as the grounds of challenge of order dated 12.11.2020 on the basis ofsection 11(a)of Act of 1894 is concerned, the Writ Petition No. 21364 of 2004 challenging the acquisition has already been dismissed by order dated 31.5.2016 and another writ petition for the same relief has also been dismissed by this Court by order dated 10.12.2019 being Writ Petition No. 40276 of 2019. Filing of successive Writ Petitions on the same ground with identical relief is nothing but an abuse of process of law.12.	It appears that in the order impugned a clear finding has been recorded by the Authority that the possession of the land has been taken and transferred to the Noida Development Authority on 3.9.2003. The award was made on 29.1.2010. The amount of compensation has been deposited in the Court by challan on 14.2.2017, thus the entire proceedings has been concluded. It is further recorded in the impugned order that the Noida Development Authority has informed to the State Government that the part of the land is under road in Sector 96, 97 & 98 of Noida.13.	The findings recorded in the order dated 12.11.2020 have not been challenged in the writ petition rather the petitioner in this writ petition has admitted that he had been dispossessed in the year 2003 by demolishing the construction over the land in dispute.14.	Five Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal Yadav, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 has considered the scope of Sub-Section (2) ofSection 24of the Act of 2013 along with the law related to Act of 1894 and has recorded its conclusion, is as under:"365.	Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. (supra) is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association (supra) cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled.In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) through L.Rs. and Ors., (supra), the aspect with respect to the proviso toSection 24(2)and whether ''or' has to be read as ''nor' or as "and" was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment.366.	In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:366.1.	Under the provisions ofSection 24(1)(a)in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of Act of 2013.366.2.	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 underSection 24(1)(b)of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.366.3.	The word ''or' used inSection 24(2)between possession and compensation has to be read as ''nor' or as ''and'. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings underSection 24(2)of the Act of 2013 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 ofSection 24(2)of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso toSection 24(2)in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition underSection 4of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation underSection 31of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest underSection 34of 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 Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition underSection 4of the Act of 1894.366.5.	In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided underSection 31(1)of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed underSection 24(2)due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount underSection 31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed underSection 24(2)of the Act of 2013.366.6.	The proviso toSection 24(2)of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as part ofSection 24(2)not part ofSection 24(1)(b).366.7.	The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as contemplated underSection 24(2)is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession underSection 16of the Act of 1894, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided underSection 24(2)of the Act of 2013, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse underSection 24(2).366.8.	The provisions ofSection 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 Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with concerned authority 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 Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition.Section 24applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred 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."15.	In view of the above, the writ petition is wholly misconceived and abuse of process of law, as successive writ petitions are being filed challenging the same acquisition proceedings. Thus, the writ petition is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/.Order Date :- 15.6.2021\n \nSwati\n \n(Prakash Padia,J.)  (Sanjay Yadav, C.J.)