M. Katju, J. - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned notice dated 5th November, 2001 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), the impugned notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 30.1.1989 and 16.1.1995 (Annexures-1 and 7), and for quashing the award dated 5th November, 2001. It was also prayed that the respondent be directed to release the land in dispute from acquisition and to withdraw all acquisition proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of the notification dated 30th January, 1989 under Section 4 of the Act and the notification under Section 6 dated 16th January, 1995. Thus, in effect by means of the present petition the petitioner has challenged the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, the award ultimately passed on 5th November, 2001, in pursuance thereto and the consequential notice dated 5th November, 2001, issued to the petitioner to collect the amount of compensation awarded to him. It has been stated in para 3A of the petition that notification dated 30th January, 1989 (Annexure-3 to the petition) was published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 17 for making constructions under a planned development scheme in district Agra. Thereafter a notification dated 8th February, 1990 (Annexure-4 to the petition) was issued under Section 6 on 8.2.1990. However, this Court vide judgment dated 20th August, 1993 (Annexure-5 to the petition) quashed the notification under Section 6 of the Act. It is stated in para 6 to the petition that an award dated 29th February, 1992 (Annexure-6 to the petition) was passed and subsequently several petitions were filed challenging the same. A fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 16th January, 1995 (Annexure-7 to the petition). The aforesaid notification was also challenged in several petitions. Another set of petitions demanding compensation in terms of the award was also filed before this Court. All these petitions were dismissed on 5.1.2000 by a common judgment A.D.A. v. S.L.A.O., 2000 (2) AWC 1065. Subsequently, the A.D.A. went to the Supreme Court challenging the aforesaid judgment and the Supreme Court held that where land is acquired for an authority that authority must be given a hearing by the S.L.A.O. vide (2001) 2 SCC 646, (Annexure-C.A.1 to the counter-affidavit). The Supreme Court clarified that the acquisition proceedings are not being set aside, and the S.L.A.O. is merely being directed to refix the compensation. In compliance of the Supreme Court direction the impugned award dated 5th November, 2001 was passed.
(3.) IN paragraph 15 of the petition it has been stated that since the earlier notification dated 8th February, 1990 under Section 6 of the Act was quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 22nd August, 1993 (Annexure-6 to the petition) and a fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 16th January, 1995, the award should have been passed within a period of two years from 16th January, 1995. It has been further submitted that the award dated 5th November, 2001, which has been made in continuation of the earlier award dated 29th February, 1992, loses its importance insofar as the petitioner is concerned as he was not a party before the High Court or the Supreme Court. IN paragraph 16 of the petition it has been stated that the petitioner is still in possession over the plot in dispute. As regards the question of delay in making the award, this plea has no merit in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Agra Development Authority v. S.L.A.O., 2000 (2) AWC 1065.;