- (1.) A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894 was issued on 31 August 2007 for acquisition of a large tract of land including land situated in plot nos. 347, 354 and 383 ad-measuring .1390 hectares, .1260 hectares and 3.1470 hectares respectively situated in village Etaihra, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri for planned Industrial Development in District Gautam Budha Nagar by the Greater Noida Development Authority1. It was published in the Gazette on 31 August 2007 and in two news papers on 7 September 2007. Public Notice of the said notification was caused on 13 September 2007. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was followed by the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on 4 July 2008. This declaration was published in the Gazette in 4 July 2008 and in two news papers on 11 July 2008. Public notice of the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act was caused on 19 July 2008. The provisions of Section 17(4) were applied and the enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. The award was made under Section 11 of the Act on 25 July 2007. A supplementary award was also made on 25 December 2013.
(2.) The grand father of the petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No.42424 of 2011 to challenge the notification issued under Section 4 and the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. This writ petition was connected with number of writ petitions which were decided by a common judgment that is reported in 2011(11)ADJ2. One of the many issues that was raised before the Full Bench was whether the acquisition would lapse in view of the provisions under Section 11-A of the Act that provides that in the event the award is not made within a period of two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the acquisition would lapse. This issue was decided against the petitioners in paragraphs 372 to 376 of the judgment, which are reproduced : "372. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that after publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, in none of the cases award has been made under Section 11 within two years from the date of publication, hence the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land has lapsed. Section 11 A of the Act is as follows: 11A. Period within which an award shall be made - (1) The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. 373. Learned counsel for the respondents refuting the submission made by counsel for the petitioners contends that in all the acquisitions under challenge Section 17(1) was invoked and the possession was taken of the land after issue of notice under Section 9 and land was vested in the State under Section 17 sub Section(1) hence Section 11-A has no application. 374. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Section 11A applies in the cases where Section 17 has not been invoked and in cases where Section 17 has been invoked, there is no applicability of Section 11-A. 375. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court of Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P., 1993 4 SCC 369 and Banda Development Authority v. Motilal Agarwal, 2011 5 SCC 394. 376. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. In Aatendra Prasad Jain's case the issue was considered and it was held by the Apex that when Section 17 sub Section (1) is applied by reason of urgency, the Government takes possession of the land prior to the making of the award under Section 11 and thereupon the owner is divested of the title to the land which is vested in the Government as laid down in paragraph 15. The said view was reiterated by the Apex Court in Awadh Bihari Yadav and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1995 6 SCC 31. The recent judgment of Banda Development Authority has also occasion to consider the said issue, relying on the decision of Satendra Prasad Jain. The argument on the basis of Section 11-A was repelled. In the present bunch of cases the State Government has invoked urgency clause under Section 17(1) and possession has been taken in all the cases exercising urgency power. The ratio laid down by Satendra Prasad Jain's case is fully attracted and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of Section 11-A can not be accepted."
(3.) This petition has been filed by the heirs to assail the same acquisition again on the same ground namely that the acquisition would lapse as the award was not made within a period of two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act.;