Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
Heard Sri Mohd. Afzal and Sri Siddharth Dhaon, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned standing counsel appearing for respondent nos.1, 2 and 5 and Sri Mithilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Shri D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents pray for and are granted one month's time to file counter affidavit. Petitioners will have three weeks thereafter for filing rejoinder affidavit.
Connect this petition with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33961 of 2010 and list after the expiry of the aforesaid period.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in brief 'the Act') was published in official Gazette on 13.7.2006. By invoking the urgency clause under Sections 17 (1) and (4) were invoked and inquiry under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with.
Notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 26.7.2007. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued beyond the period of one year, therefore, the proceedings of execution became illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further urged that notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were challenged by various petitioners whose writ petitions were decided by a common judgment and leading case was being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2261 of 2007 Smt.Manju Lata Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 20.9.2007 wherein the notification under Sections 4 and 6 were upheld . This order was challenged by way of S.L.P. before the Apex Court being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18497/2007. This S.L.P. was dismissed on 8.10.2007. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the award was not made under Section 11-A of the Act even after 2 years on 7.10.2009. Two years period was completed on 7.10.2009 but no award was made. In this regard the petitioners have obtained a question-answer dated 7.4.2010 wherein answer has been given by the Land Acquisition Officer, Mathura to the effect that upto 7.4.2010 since agreement letter was not available, therefore, the award was not made.
In view of this question-answer it appears that award was not made within a period of two years and the entire land acquisition proceedings would lapse, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by LRS. vs. State of U.P. and others, (2007) SCC 85, which has been relied by a Division Bench of this Court in Pyre Lal and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (2) AWC 2076.
The decision of the Apex Court relied by the learned counsel for the respondents in Satendra Prasad Jain and others vs. State of U.P. and others (1993) 4 SCC 369, prima facie does not help the respondents as the acquisition proceedings appears to be prima facie bad on two scores, (1) notification has been issued after expiry of one year period and, (2) the award was not made within a period of two years from the date of dismissal of the S.L.P. though the counsel for the petitioners has urged that the award was given within a period of six months but from question-answer dated 7.4.2010 filed by the petitioners it appears that the award was not made within the period of two years.
In this view of the matter the petitioner is entitled for an interim order.
Until further orders of this Court parties are directed to maintain status-quo with regard to land in dispute.
Order Date :- 14.6.2010 A.