JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. The petitioners alleged that they are co-owners of plot Nos. 65/2, 68, 70 and 74 situate in village Nagla Battoo Yadgarpur, Tehsil and District Meerut, and contended that a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued and published in the Gazette on 21.8.1985 indicating therein that the land was required for a public purpose, namely, for construction of residential buildings for the people of Meerut by the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut under a planned development scheme. The notification further stipulated that it was a case of urgency and the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act was applicable since the land was urgently required for the construction of buildings and therefore to eliminate the delay the provision of Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with. Subsequently, a declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of the Act was issued and published in the Gazette on 28.8.1985 and the last declaration was made on 4.9.1985 wherein the provisions of Section 17(1) was invoked directing the Collector, Meerut to take the possession of the land after the expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice under Section 9(1) of the Act even though no Award under Section 11 had been made. It transpires that the aforesaid notification under Sections 4 and 6 was challenged by the father of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and by the remaining petitioners along with other tenure holders by means of Writ Petition No. 13352 of 1985, Lekhraj and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.. The said writ petition was entertained and an interim order dated 11.9.1985 was passed directing the respondents not to dispossess the writ petitioners from the plots in dispute. The said writ petition was eventually dismissed vide judgment dated 17.7.1992 in which it was held that the urgency clause under Sections 17(4) and 17(1) of the Act was rightly invoked and the provisions of Section 5A of the Act was rightly dispensed with. The Court while dismissing the writ petition gave the following directions :
"In the result, this petition and the other group of petitions connected with the writ petition are dismissed with the following directions :
It will be open to the petitioners to make representation before the Meerut Development Authority for exemption of their land on which there existed constructions, residential, commercial and industrial before publication of the impugned notifications under Section 4 of the Act, within two month from today. If such representations are filed before the Meerut Development Authority, it will investigate into the matter and get the plots concerned surveyed and thereafter, decide it on the basis of material produced by the petitioners on its own records, after sending intimations to the concerned parties of the date on which the matter will be considered by it. This decision shall be taken by the Meerut Development Authority as far as possible within two months from the date of receipt of representation along with the certified copy of this order. Decision so taken shall be communicated to the concerned parties within two weeks thereafter. In case, the Meerut Development Authority finds that the petitioners' plot have pre-notification construction it will make necessary recommendation to the State Government for exemption. However, if the Meerut Development Authority decides against any of the petitions, it will be open to them to make representation before the Government within a month after the decision of the Meerut Development Authority and the Government will look into the grievance of the petitioners and pass appropriate order expeditiously.
Till Government decides the question of grant of exemption, status quo, as to today, shall be maintained by the parties.
The parties are directed to bear their own costs."
2. It is clear from the aforesaid decision that the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the representation by the Meerut Development Authority as well as by the Government.
3. The petitioners alleged that after the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition they made a representation to the Meerut Development Authority, which was rejected on 2.2.1994 and since the petitioners did not make any further representation to the State Government the order to status quo passed by the Court vide its judgment dated 17.7.1992 came to an end on 2.2.1994, when the representation of the petitioners was rejected by the Meerut Development Authority. The petitioners alleged that in the period of stay of dispossession granted by the High Court was excluded and the period of two years was computed, the award should have been made or the possession of the land should have been taken on or before 24.1.1996. Since the award under Section 11 was not made till 24.1.1996 nor possession of the land was taken, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed by virtue of Section 11A of the Act.
4. The petitioners have further alleged that they received a notice under Section 9 of the Act in which it was indicated that the possession of the land would be taken after the expiry of 15 days upto 30.1.1996. It was contended that since the award was not made within a period of two years till 24.1.1996, the question of taking possession after 24.1.1996 did not arise and the petitioners could not be dispossessed from the land in dispute on the basis of the acquisition proceedings after 24.1.1996. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for the following reliefs :
(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to declare the land acquisition proceedings in respect of land, Khasra Nos. 65/2, 68, 70 and 74 as null and void having lapsed under Section 11A of the Act;
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, dated 21.8.1985 and 28.8.1985 (Annexures-1 and 2), respectively;
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in dispute on the basis of the aforesaid notifications dated 21.8.1985 and 28.8.1985 and proceedings.
5. The State of U.P. through the Collector, Meerut and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a counter-affidavit stating therein that the possession of the land was handed over to the Meerut Development Authority on 31.1.1996. It was further stated that possession of the land was taken before the expiry of two years after excluding the period of stay, Meerut Development Authority has also filed a counter-affidavit and submitted that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed and that the possession was taken within a period of two years even after excluding the period of stay granted by this Court. It was further stated that pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 17.7.1992, the interim order directing status quo to be maintained by the parties continued till one month after the decision dated 2.2.1994 of the Meerut Development Authority inasmuch as the High Court in its judgment further gave liberty to the petitioners to make a representation within one month from the date of the decision by Meerut Development Authority to the State Government. It was submitted that the respondents had to wait till one month after the decision of the Meerut Development Authority before taking any action for taking possession and the order of the Court directing parties to maintain status quo would continue till the expiry of the period of making the representation before the State Government.
6. We have heard Sri Pankaj Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the Meerut Development Authority.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of the Court directing the parties to maintain status quo came to an end on 2.2.1994 when the representation of the petitioners was rejected by the Meerut Development Authority. It was submitted that the petitioners did not make any further representation to the State Government and therefore, the order of status quo passed by the Court came to an end on 2.2.1994. As such, the possession of the land or the award should have been made on or before 24.1.1996 after excluding the period of stay as contemplated under Section 11A of the Act. The petitioners submitted that since the award was not made nor the possession of the land was taken before 24.1.1996, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. In support of his contention, the petitioners have relied upon the following cases, namely :
(1) Satendra Prasad Jain and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.. JT 1993 (5) SC 385;
(2) Awadh Behari Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1995 (3) AWC 2011 (SC) : JT 1995 (6) SC 248;
(3) Sushil Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1999 (1) AWC 764 : 1999 (1) ALR 764; and (4) Dabur India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2002 (2) AWC 157.
8. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. This Court while dismissing the earlier petitions vide judgment dated 17.7.1992 directed the parties to maintain status quo till the Government decided the representation of the petitioners for grant of exemption of their land. The land holders were permitted to make a representation to the Meerut Development Authority and upon a decision made by the Meerut Development Authority, the land holders were given another opportunity to make a further representation within one month before the State Government. The Court directed that till the Government decides the representation, the parties were directed too maintain status quo. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that their representation pursuant to the judgment of the Court dated 17.7.1992 was rejected by the Meerut Development Authority vide its order dated 2.2.1994 and since the petitioners did not make any further representation to the State Government, the stay order passed by the Court came to an end on 2,2.1994 is without any basis. The Court in its judgment dated 17.7.1992 clearly directed that against the decision of Meerut Development Authority, it would be open to the land holders' to make a further representation within one month from the date of decision of the Meerut Development Authority. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent had to wait for a period of one month before proceeding to take possession of the land. The respondents had no idea as to whether the petitioners were going to make a further representation to the State Government or not. There is nothing to indicate in the petition that after the rejection of the representation by the Meerut Development Authority vide its order dated 2.2.1994, the petitioners communicated to the respondents that they are not going to make any further representation. Therefore, the respondents had no knowledge of the fact that the petitioners were not making any further representation to the State Government and therefore, they had to wait for a period of one month before initiating any action. Thus, if, we add the period of one month from 2.2.1994, we find that the possession taken by the respondents on 31.1.1996 was within the stipulated period of two year. Thus, we hold that the respondents took the possession of the land within a period of two years after excluding the period of stay granted by the Court. Since the possession of the land was taken within the stipulated period, the acquisition proceedings did not lapse by operation of law as contemplated under Section 11A of the Act.
9. In Satendra Prasad Jain and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1993 (5) SCC 385 at page 390 it was held :
"When Section 17(1) is applied by reason of urgency, Government takes possession of the land prior to the making of the award under Section 11 and thereupon the owner is divested of the title to the land which is vested in the Government. Section 17(1) states so in unmistakable terms. Clearly, Section 11A can have no application to cases of acquisitions under Section 17 because the lands have already vested in the Government and there is no provision in the said Act by which land statutorily vested in the Government can revert to the owner."
10. The Supreme Court in Awadh Bihari Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1995 (3) AWC 2011 (SC); JT 1995 (6) SC 248 at page 255 held :
"In this case, the Government had taken possession of the land in question under Section 17(1) of the Act. It is not open to the Government to withdraw from the acquisition (Section 48 of the Act). In such a case. Section 11A of the Act is not attracted and the , acquisition proceedings would not lapse, even if it is assumed that no award was made within the period prescribed by Section 11A of the Act."
11. The Division Bench judgment of our Court in the case of Sushil Kumar (supra). is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as we have already held that possession of the land was taken by the respondents within the stipulated period and therefore, Section 11A of the Act is not attracted. Thus, we hold that since the possession of the land was taken within the stipulated period, the acquisition proceedings did not lapse and the provision of Section 11A was not attracted.
12. We would like to add that the petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition challenging the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, which was dismissed by a judgment dated 17.7.1992 holding that the urgency clause under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) 6f the Act was rightly invoked and the provision of Section 5A was rightly dispensed with. The petitioners now could not challenge the urgency clause on the ground that the possession of the land was not taken within the stipulated period of two years.
13. We may point out that the provision of Section 11A was inserted in the Act to benefit the landowners and the ensure that the award was made within a period of two years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Yusuf Bhai Noor Mohammad Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat and Anr., (1991) 4 SCC 531, at 535 held :
"On the other hand, it appears to us that the Explanation is intended to confer a benefit on a landholder whose land is acquired after the declaration under Section 6 is made in cases covered by the Explanation. The benefit is that 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 proceedings 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."
14. 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 want to take advantage of Section 11A of the Act, must not have obtained an interim order.
15. In the present case the petitioners themselves had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings thereby stalling the acquisition proceedings on account of interim order granted by the Court. The petitioners themselves contributed to the delay and did not allow the respondents from taking the possession of the land. Therefore, assuming that the possession of the land was not taken within the stipulated period, we are not inclined to quash the acquisition proceeding in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
16. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.