AI Drafter 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 1535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(for short, `the Act'), the State Government proposed the acquisition of land including 1.87 acres belonging to the Appellants in C.A. No. 2730/2005 and 1.91 acres belonging to the Appellants in C.A. No. 2732 of 2005 for Habibpura Housing Scheme of the Varanasi Development Authority (for short, 'the VDA'). Declaration under Section 6(1) was published in the Official Gazette dated 30.11.1981. 3. The Appellants challenged the two notifications in CMWP No. 1769 of 1982 and CMWP No. 14885 of 1982. The first writ petition was dismissed in default on 10.9.1990 and the second writ petition was dismissed on merits on 18.11.1997. 4. Notwithstanding dismissal of the writ petitions, the Respondents neither took possession of the acquired land nor any award was passed within the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Act. In the year 2000, the Appellants filed CMWP Nos. 24326 and 23043 of 2000 respectively with the allegation that the Respondents are seeking to dispossess them. They prayed for grant of a declaration that the acquisition proceedings will be deemed to have lapsed because the award was not passed within two years of coming into force of the Land Acquisition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od of more than a year to lapse even prior to the passing of the interim order and they did not either take possession or deliver the award. 12. That the writ petition, referred to herein above kept pending and the interim order continued to be operative in favour of the Petitioners but the writ petition came to be ultimately dismissed on 18.11.1997 and a true copy of the judgment in Annexure-5. 13. That the Respondents had full and complete knowledge of the judgment dated 18.11.1997 as it had been delivered in open court in the presence of the learned standing counsel representing the State of U.P. as well as the counsel of the development Authority and as such, the Respondents had full knowledge of the aforesaid judgment. 14. That in spite of the writ petition having been dismissed on 16.11.1997, no proceedings were undertaken by the Respondents even thereafter to either take possession of the land or deliver the award in respect of the property under acquisition. It is thus clear that a period of almost more than 3 years was allowed to lapse by the Respondents themselves and neither any possession was taken from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oming to know about the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dismissing the writ petition action was immediately taken and thereafter the possession over the plot in question was taken with the help of Collector, Varanasi in presence of the Petitioner. 13. That contents of paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition are denied. It is denied that the deponent came to know about dismissal of the writ petition as alleged. It is submitted that the fact about dismissal of the writ petition came to the knowledge of the answering Respondent in the year, 2000 itself and thereafter acting promptly the possession of the land in question was taken in presence of the Petitioners. 7. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by him, Shri Laxman Pandya claimed that possession of the acquired land was not taken on 10.5.2000 or even thereafter and the contrary assertion made on behalf of the VDA was false. 8. In CMWP No. 23043 of 2000, counter affidavit was filed by Shri Raj Kumar, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi. He claimed that intimation regarding vacation of the stay order was received from the VDA in April/May 2000 and, thereafter, action was taken for passing the aw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order of the same date passed in CMWP No. 18932 of 2000 Panchu Ram v. State of U.P. and Ors.. In that case, the High Court negatived the challenge to the acquisition proceedings on the ground of violation of Section 11A by observing that possession of the acquired land could not be taken till May, 2000 because the Respondents did not know about dismissal of the writ petitions filed in 1982. In the opinion of the High Court, Section 11A was not attracted in the case. The relevant portions of the order passed in Panchu Ram's case are extracted below: The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that after the dismissal of the writ petition, the Respondents did not take possession nor made the award within two years and, therefore, the provisions of Section 11A is attracted. The Petitioner since urged that the possession of the land was not taken nor the award was made within two years, the entire acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 11A of the Act. 10. According to the Petitioner the last of the writ petition was dismissed on 25.11.1997 and excluding the period of stay, the limitation to make an award or take possession stood extende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the award must be made within a period of two years of the declaration, failing which the acquisition proceedings would lapse and the land would revert to the landholder. In order to get the benefit of the said provision what is required, is that the landholder who seeks the benefit must not have obtained any order from a Court restraining any action or proceeding in pursuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act so that the Explanation covers only the cases of those landholders who do not obtain any order from a Court which would delay or prevent the making of the award or taking possession of the land acquired. 13. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision (Supra), is that the owner of the land or a person who is interested in the land and wants to take advantage of Section 11A of the Act, must not have obtained an interim order. 14. In the present case the tenure holders including the co-sharer of the Petitioner had filed various writ petitions before this Hon'ble court challenging the acquisition proceedings thereby stalling the acquisition proceedings on account of interim orders granted by this Court. The tenure holders t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, we hold that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief in exercise of the discretionary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Emphasis supplied) 15. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. The moot question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the High Court was justified in refusing to quash acquisition proceedings despite the fact that the award was not made within the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Act. That section reads as under: 11A. 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 the 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, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation.-In computing the period of two ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers' counsel Shri R.N. Singh, who was assisted by Shri A.P. Sahi, Shri A.K. Dubey representing the VDA and Shri Virendra Kumar, Standing Counsel. CWP No. 66/1982 Ram Kishore and Anr. v. State of U.P. was dismissed by the High Court on 30.10.1995. SLP(C) No. 5368/1996 filed by Ram Kishore was dismissed by this Court on 2.8.1996. Two writ petitions being CMWP No. 15173/1982 Smt. Tulia v. State of U.P. and Anr. and CMWP No. 15175/1982 Bhagwan Das and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., were dismissed by the Division Bench by common order dated 25.11.1997 after hearing the counsel for the Petitioners Shri A.N. Shukla and the Standing Counsel representing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is, therefore, not possible to believe that the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the officers of the VDA did not know about dismissal of the writ petitions till April/ May 2000. The death of Shri G.C. Dwivedi, Advocate representing the VDA in 1996 has no bearing on the Respondents' claim that till 2000 they did not know about vacation of the interim order. It is neither the pleaded case of the Respondents nor it has been argued on their behalf that they were not aware of dismissal of the writ petitio....