- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, senior advocate for the petitioners, Sri Anurag Khanna, appearing for respondent No. 3 and learned standing counsel.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 23rd August, 2007 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Meerut in Land Acquisition Reference No. 684 of 1997, Murtaza Hasan v. State of U. P. and others, rejecting the applications 24c and 26c. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are ; a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued by the State Government on 6th February, 1990 for acquiring the land for Meerut Development Authority. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also made on 22nd March, 1990. The respondent No. 4, Murtaza Hasan, was original tenure holder of plots of Khasra Nos. 636, 690, 691 and 693. Notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued on 5th August, 1991. The Special Land Acquisition Officer gave an award on 17th March, 1992. The respondent No. 4, tenure holder, made an application, which was received by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 21st April, 1992 for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act, on the bass of the said application Land Acquisition Reference No. 684 of 1997 was registered. The petitioner No. 1 vide registered sale-deed dated 20th September, 1996 purchased Plots No. 690 area 0-15-10, 691 area 0-15-10 and 693 area 2-2-0 from the original tenure holder, Murtaza Hasan, petitioner No. 2 purchased Plot No. 636 area 7-0-18 vide sale-deed dated 29th February, 2000. Petitioners No. 1 moved an application on 3rd December, 2003, under Section 18 of the Act before the Special Land Acquisition Officer praying that application may be referred to the District Judge in Land Acquisition Reference No. 684 of 1997 for making impleadment of the applicant Satyavir Singh as claimant in place of Murtaza Hasan. Similarly Petitioner No. 2 moved an application on the same date under Section 18 making the same prayer. A letter dated 10th December, 2003 was written by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the District Judge, Meerut forwarding the applications of both the petitioners dated 3rd December, 2003 for necessary action. The Additional District Judge by the impugned order dated 23rd August, 2007 rejected the applications filed by the petitioners dated 3rd December, 2003, which was forwarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the District Judge. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23rd August, 2007. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioners, challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge, contended that petitioners being purchasers of the land in question have stepped into shoes of the original tenure holder and their applications dated 3rd December, 2003 were liable to be allowed. He further submits that compensation was received by the petitioners from the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is further submitted that possession was actually given to Meerut Development Authority on 24th May, 2002, hence it is contended that learned Additional District Judge committed error in treating the date of taking possession as 17th March, 1991 only on the basis of mentioning of date in the application filed by the petitioners dated 3rd December, 2003. The contention is that possession having been taken in the year 2002, the land did not vest in the State and the petitioners' sale-deeds were fully valid and were not void sale-deed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for Meerut Development Authority refuted the submission of the petitioners and submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has rightly rejected the applications of the petitioners. Learned counsel for both the parties have placed reliance on various judgments of the Apex Court, which shall be referred to hereinafter.;