B.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THIS petition and all the other petitions referred to in the Schedule appended to this judgment, question the validity of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), in respect of the area notified under Sections 4 and 6 of the aforesaid Act spread over seven revenue villages of district Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. All these cases raise common questions of law and fact, and therefore they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment, which shall govern them.
(2.) THE facts are not in dispute. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for planned development of New Kanpur City in the official gazette of the State of Uttar Pradesh on 9th August, 1996 in respect of a huge area of land of seven Revenue Estates. Substance of the said notification was published in different newspapers. The last such publication was made on 20.12.1996. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 17.12.1997 in the official gazette, covering the entire land which stood notified under Section 4 of the Act. It may also be pertinent to mention here that the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were resorted to. Some persons filed writ petitions, i.e. Writ Petition No. 201 of 1998 Kanwar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors; Writ Petition No. 627 of 1998 Gomti Nagar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd.v. The State of U.P. and Ors.; Writ Petition No. 624 of 1998 Mahabir Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd.v. The State of U.P. and Ors.; and Writ Petition No. 716 of 1998 Akanksha Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd.v. The State of U.P. and Ors., challenging the acquisition proceedings mainly on the ground that they had not been given opportunity of hearing while deciding their objections under Section 5A of the Act. The said writ petitions were allowed by a common judgment and order of the Court dated 26.03.1999, by which the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act were quashed, insofar as they related to the land belonging to the petitioners therein. Being aggrieved, the Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur (hereinafter called the 'Authority') challenged the said judgment and order before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5517 - 5521 of 1999, and 3442 -3446 of 2000. The Hon'ble Apex Court decided the said appeals vide judgment and order 06.10.2004 reported in (2005) 10 SC 320, holding that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act could not have been quashed as there were no exceptional circumstances, like the one where the notification suffered from incurable irregularity, such as total vagueness in respect to the property to be acquired and in regard to the public purpose. The judgment and order of this Court was modified to the extent that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act remained intact and the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter called the 'Collector') was directed to decide the objections under Section 5A of the Act by giving opportunity of hearing to the persons interested and to issue a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act in accordance with law. The Collector, instead of restricting the case only to those persons whose petitions had been allowed, issued notices under Section 5A of the Act by publication in the newspaper on 18.05.2005 and asked the persons interested to file objections under Section 5A of the Act within 30 days thereof. Large number of persons filed objections and they were heard village -wise and a fresh declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was made on 3rd October, 2005 in respect of the entire land measuring 468.2963 hectares situate in said seven villages, as notified under Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence these writ petitions. S/Shri Vijai Bahadur Singh, S.P. Gupta, Ravi Kant, Ravi Kiran Jain, Murlidhar, R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, S/Shri B.N. Rai, Satish Chaturvedi, Tej Pal, Prabodh Gaur, H.N. Singh, Vishnu Behari Tiwari, M.K. Gupta, S.D. Dube, A.K. Sachan, K.K. Tripathi, Neeraj Tewari and Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have contended that some of the present petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 624 of 1998, which was allowed by this Court. The declaration made under Section 6 of the Act, impugned herein, was issued after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation prescribed under the Act and as no award was made within a period of two years from the date of publication of the previous declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the proceedings under the Act lapsed.
(3.) IT is also contended that an area of 468 Hectares was notified under Section 4 of the Act and only 134 Hectares land was involved in litigation. There was no hindrance regarding the balance 334 Hectares land and at least in respect of the said land, as no Award had been made within the prescribed period, proceedings lapsed automatically by virtue of the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. Therefore, a declaration be made to that effect and the respondents be restrained to proceed further with acquisition proceedings. The limitation for issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act had expired much before the first interim order was passed on 08.01.1998. There has been hostile discrimination as in some similar cases, lands have been exempted, while objections of some of the petitioners have been rejected. No opportunity of effective hearing was afforded to the petitioners as required in law.;