- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus declaring the land acquisition proceedings in pursuance of the notification dated 25-2-1994 and 10-11-1995 as having lapsed by virtue of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed not to interfere with the petitioners, possession over the land in dispute.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners claimed to be recorded as tenure holders of the khasra plots as stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the writ petition and they claimed to be in actual physical possession. On the request of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 25-2-1994 vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition. A perusal of this notification shows that the land was being acquired for the planned industrial development in District Ghaziabad through NOIDA and there was urgency and Section 17 of the Act was invoked. It is alleged in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that the notification was never pasted at any conspicuous place in the locality nor announced by beat of drums. Thereafter notification under Section 6 was issued on 10. 11. 1995 vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition.
(3.) IN paragraph 13 of the writ petition it is alleged that the notification under Section 4 was last alleged to be published on 31. 10 1994. Hence there can be no valid publication under Section 6 after 31. 10. 1995. Hence it is alleged that the publication of the notification under Section 6 either on 3-7- 1997 or on 4-7- 1997 was invalid. In paragraphs 18 and 19 of the writ petition it is alleged that the proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act since no award was made within two years of the publication of declaration under Section 6. It is alleged that the land never vested in the State as possession was not taken over within the said period of two years. It is alleged in paragraph 21 that the very fact that no steps were taken to take possession shows that there was no urgency in the matter. For the first time on 12-11-2001 the Collector, Gautambudh Nagar offered 80% of the estimated compensation under Section 17 (3-A ). True copy of the notice dated 12-11-2001 is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It is alleged that from the above notice dated 12-11- 2001 it is clear that the respondents had not taken possession of the land in dispute till 12-11-2001. It is alleged in paragraph 25 of the writ petition that after issuing notice dated 12-11- 2001 the officers and employees of the NOIDA visited the site on 2-1- 2002 and threatened to dispossess the petitioners and demolish their constructions. In paragraph 27 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioners made enquiries and came to know that the respondents are alleged to have obtained possession of the acquired land vide possession memo dated 28-6-1999 and 29-6-1999 vide Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 28 of the writ petition that these documents are manipulated. In paragraph 29 of the writ petition it is alleged that there was no publication of the declaration issued under Section 6 made on 4-7-1997. The said declaration was not published in the newspaper nor pasted on the notice Board at any convenient place at the locality nor proclaimed by beat of drums. It is alleged that the possession memos dated 28-6-1999 and 29-6-1999 are merely orders of the A. D. M. (Land Acquisition), District Gautambudh Nagar directing the subordinate staff to take possession of the acquired land. However, it is alleged that there is no document to show that the possession was actually taken over and handed over to NOIDA. In paragraph 38 it is alleged that neither any award under Section 11 was made nor any valid vesting in the State under Section 16 took place. Hence the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. In paragraph 45 of the writ petition it is alleged that the declaration under Section 6 was issued on 10-11-1995 and, therefore, the period of two years for making the award or taking possession expired much before the alleged possession memo dated 28-6-1999 and 29-6-1999. It is alleged in paragraph 49 of the writ petition that no compensation was offered or tendered to the petitioners under Section 17 (3-A ).;