A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) THE petition is directed against acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act for the construction of a residential colony by the Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'ADA'). THEre is two- strong attack on the notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. THE first ground of challenge is that the proceedings are barred under section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. THE second ground, urged more vehemently than the first, is that the petitioners had, at the relevant point of time, become the owners of the disputed plot, viz., plot no. 67 measuring 10 Biswas and yet no notice was issued to them under section 9 (3) of the said Act. THE acquisition proceedings are thus invalid.
(2.) BEFORE we proceed to deal with these points, we may briefly set out a few relevant facts. The total area of land sought to be acquired was 127 Bighas 2 Biswas. Acquisition was for planned development, more precisely, a housing colony. The notification dated 17-2-1987 issued for this purpose under section 4 was published on 17-2-87. The notice also contained a direction under section 17 (4) of the Act that in view of the urgency of the matter, the provisions of section 5-A are being dispensed with. The notification under section 4 was followed by the notification dated 13-3-87 under section 6 published in the gazette of the same date containing the declaration that the land was required for a public purpose and the same was published in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality on the 3rd and 4th April, 1987. The public notice of the substance of the declaration under section 6 was caused to be made at convenient places in the locality in question on 13-4-87. In due course notices were issued under section 9 (1) to (3). The petitioners, however, allege that notice under sub-section (3) of section 9 was not served on them We are, however, not dilating on this dispute as we shall presently demonstrate that the same shall have no bearing on the validity of the acquisition proceedings. Finally, possession over the entire area sought to be acquired was delivered to the ADA on 25-11-87 and a full fledged housing colony has come up over the land acquired. In course of time, an award was made on 31-3-89 determining the compensation on the basis of the claims of various occupiers, persons entitled or interested in the land. The present petition was thereafter presented on 12-5-89. It is in this backdrop we have to examine the two submissions. The first point is easily disposed of. Section 11-A of the Act provides that 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 that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. The contention was that inasmuch as the declaration under section 6 was published in the gazette on 13-3-1987, the award could be given only by 13-3-1989 whereas in the present case, according to the respondents themselves, the award was made on 31-3-89. The acquisition proceedings are thus liable to be quashed upon the plain terms of section 11-A.
(3.) WE cannot agree. The argument ignores that the outer limit of two years under section 11-A has to be calculated from 'the date of the publication of the declaration.' The term 'date of the publication of the declaration' has been defined in sub-section (2) of section 6 as the last of the dates of the three modes of publication mentioned in that sub-section. These are, (1) publication of the notification in the gazette, (2) publication in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality, and (3) public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given by the Collector at convenient places in the said locality. Now in the present case the position is that though the declaration under section 6 was published in the gazette on 13-3-87, the same was published in two daily . newspapers on 3-4-87 and 4-4-87 while public notice of the substance of the declaration was caused to be made by the Collector in the locality only on 13-4-87. That being so, the award could be made upto 13-4-89. The award made on 31-3-89 was hence well within the outer limit of the prescribed time The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the award had not in fact been made on 31-3-89 but it has been deliberately ante-dated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to save the acquisition proceedings from lapsing. Reliance was placed on the various assertions made in the petition to the effect that when the first petitioner approached the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 29-4-89 and enquired about the award the latter asked him to move a formal application setting out the query. The petitioner complied with that observation and submitted a written application which was received in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. A similar application was again filed but no reply was given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Instead he declined to accept the same. It was thus apparent that no award had been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer till 29-4-89.;