Balbir Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute, which had been subject -matter of the land acquisition proceedings and declare that the said proceedings stood lapsed. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondents issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called 'the Act', and the same was published on 6.6.1983 in the U.P. Gazette, in respect of 362 -12 -14 bighas comprising in revenue estate of 2 -3 villages. It included the land of the petitioner No. 4 consisting of Khasra No. 4 measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas. Declaration under section 6 of the Act was published in respect of the said entire land on 16.6.1983 alongwith a notification under sections 17 and 17(1 -A) of the Act. Thus, the provisions of section 5A of the Act were dispensed with. On 2.4.1985, the possession of the most of land had been taken but certain plots were left out. The award was made on 22.9.1986 but it was not in respect of Khasra No. 4, i.e., land in dispute. However, on the said date, supplementary award was made in respect of the left out plots including the land of petitioner No. 4. The writ petition has been filed challenging the Said supplementary award on the ground that by virtue of the amendment in Act, which came into force on 24th September, 1984, the award could be made only upto 23rd September, 1986 and not at subsequent stage, as it would lapse by virtue of the provisions of section 11A of the Act and the supplementary award was made subsequently, though purported to have been made on 22.9.1986 and it is not the real and genuine award. Signature of the then Special Land Acquisition Officer have been forged.
(2.) WE have heard Shri D.V. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioners; Shri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Ashok Mohiley, learned Counsel for other respondents. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners' land had not been included in the main award made on 22.9.1986. Thus, there was no occasion for the respondents to make the supplementary award on the same day for the left out lands. The supplementary award is definitely an ante dated document and, thus, is liable to be quashed and as there was no award in fact within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, the proceedings stood lapsed.
(3.) ON the contrary, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the award was made in 1986, the writ petition has been filed in 1992, i.e. after expiry of more man 6 years of the said award. Petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 are the purchasers of the land by agreement to sell without any registered sale deed in their favour dated 11.2.1987, which is not only subsequent to section 4 notification but also after making of the supplementary award. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 claim that they had paid the entire consideration to the petitioner No. 4. The agreement to sell itself is void. More so, the agreement to sell does not confer any title on them. If the petitioner No. 4 has taken the entire amount and has no interest in the property, the petition itself is not maintainable at his behest. The possession of the land has been taken from the petitioner No. 4 on 5.12.1986, therefore, the petitioner No. 4 did not possess any title to transfer to the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the reason that once the land vested in the State by virtue of the provisions of section 16 of the Act, it cannot be divested. The total land acquired measured 362 -12 -14 bighas. Petitioner No. 4 claims to own only 1 bigha 10 biswas. Land acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged by any means on any ground by him as it would hamper the entire purpose for which the land had been acquired. The allegations that the supplementary award is ante dated and forged document, is false, as the petitioner, has not produced and evidence to that effect. More so, supplementary award was given in respect of large area of land belonging to large number of land owners. Had it been so, other persons could also have challenged the proceedings. As everybody was satisfied, the issue is not worth examining at the behest of the petitioners alone having such a small area, that too, after by executing agreement to sell by petitioner No. 4 in favour of petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3. As the agreement is in contravention of the public policy, it is void and does not have any sanctity. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed.;