R.V. Raveendran, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The first Respondent was the owner of lands bearing Gata Nos. 106, 118, 119, 123, 126 and 145 in village Kakrahi, District Auraiya, Uttar Pradesh. The said lands, among others, were acquired for a special railway project, that is, the Dedicated Freight Corridor at Kanpur (Rural), Auraiya and Etava Districts. The acquisition was under chapter IVA of the Railways Act, 1989 (Act for short) which dealt with land acquisitions for special railway projects. A notification dated 10.6.2008 (gazetted on 10.6.2008) under Section 20A(1) of the Act was published by the Central Government declaring its intention to acquire lands in question for execution of a special railway project. This was followed by a declaration dated 12.12.2008 (gazetted on 16.12.2008) under Section 20E(1) of the Act declaring that the lands mentioned therein should be acquired for the purpose mentioned in the notification under Section 20A(1) of the Act. On such declaration, the land vested absolutely in the Central Government free from encumbrances, in view of the vesting provision in Section 20E(2) of the Act. A public notice referring to the notifications dated 10.6.2008 and 12.2.2008 under section 20A(1) and 20E(1) of the Act and inviting claims from all persons interested in the lands was published by the competent authority in two newspapers (Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran) dated 20.2.2009. Thereafter an order dated 8.2.2010 was made by the competent authority determining the compensation payable, under Section 20F(1) of the Act.
(3.) The first Respondent filed W.P. No. 14945/2010 for quashing the award dated 8.2.2010 and for a declaration that the entire acquisition proceedings stood lapsed under Section 20F(2) of the Act, as the award was not made within one year from the date of publication of the date of declaration dated 12.12.2008. A Division bench of the High Court allowed the said writ petition by the impugned order dated 12.5.2010. It quashed the award dated 8.2.2010 and declared that the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed. The said decision was based on the following findings recorded by the division bench: (a) The award was made beyond one year from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 20E(1) of the Act. (b) The benefit of the first proviso to Section 20F(2) of the Act which enabled the competent authority to make the award within an extended period of six months (after the expiry of one year specified in Section 20F(2) of the Act) was not available to save the acquisition, as the competent authority failed to record in writing any reason to show that he was satisfied that the delay was caused due to unavoidable circumstances. Questions for consideration ;