- (1.) THE petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the possession, use and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land in suit comprised in Khasra Plot No. 112 area 1 Bigha, Plot No. 113 area 7 Biswa and Plot No. 114 area 7 Biswa, total area 1 Bigha 14 Biswa of village Bodla, Tehsil and District Agra and the second prayer is to declare that the land in question should not be treated as acquired in pursuance of the notice dated 4-4-1970 issued under Section 28 of the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Adhiniyam (in short the 'adhiniyam' ).
(2.) THE version of the petitioner is that a notice under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam, for framing a housing scheme named as "sikandra Grahasthan Evam Sarak Yojna" was published to develop the area of about 535 Bighas of land at village Bodla, Tehsil and District Agra on 4-4-1970. A notification under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam was also published for the commencement of the said scheme. A notification was also published on 23-1-1981. On 7-8-1981 the possession of 230 Bigha 7 Biswa and 10 Biswansi of the land was taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No. 2. THE remaining parts of Plot No. 112 area 1 Bigha, Plot No. 113 area 7 Biswa and Plot No. 114 area 7 Biswa, total area 1 Bigha 14 Biswa continued to be recorded in the name of Smt. Padmawati as Bhumidhar. Respondent No. 2 made an award on 15-5-1986 in respect of 1 Bigha and 18 Biswa for which possession was taken but no award was made for the remaining Plot Nos. 112, 113 and 114 which remained in the possession of the petitioner. THE petitioner is alleged to have purchased the land of 1 Bigha and 14 Biswa from the legal representatives of Smt. Padmawati by registered sale-deed. The contention of the petitioner is that as the award was not made for the acquired land, the proceedings shall be treated as lapsed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the 'act' ). The petitioner is not challenging any notification issued by the respondents. The contention is that as no award was made, the notification which was issued under Sections 28 and 32 of the Adhiniyam, lapsed. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted is that the suit of the petitioner would be barred under law. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in S. P. Subramanya Shetty and others v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and others, 1997 (30) ALR 218 (SC), wherein the Court held that the notification issued by the Government under Sections 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the Act having become final, cannot be challenged in a suit. In this case the notification was issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The petitioner had challenged the notification. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. In that circumstances the Supreme Court observed that the suit challenging under the notification was not maintainable. Hence in this case, the petitioner is not challenging the notification issued under the aforesaid Act. The question is as to whether any award was made in respect of the land in question and if there was not award the proceedings shall be treated as lapsed under Section 11-A of the Act. It is a question of fact and the petitioner can seek appropriate relief in a competent Court of law.
(3.) THE writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;