- (1.) Heard Shri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) The petitioners had initially prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.03.2012 passed by the State Government rejecting the application of the petitioners under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, during pendency of the writ petition and with the enforcement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with effect from 01st of January, 2014, an amendment has been sought in the writ petition seeking further relief for declaring the proceedings to have lapsed on the ground that neither the possession has been taken, nor any award has been made nor any compensation has been deposited or disbursed to the petitioners in lieu of the acquired land.
(3.) The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 for acquiring the three plots with which the petitioners are concerned namely, Plot Nos. 407, 413 and 415 of Village Ranopali, Pargana Haweli Avadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad was issued on 23rd of June, 2004 and a notification under Section 6 followed read with Section 17 of 21st of February, 2005. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 3810 of 2005 and an interim order was passed on 14th of June, 2005 to the following effect; "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Prateek Kumar holding brief of Shri N.K. Seth, learned counsel for Secretary, Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority, Faizabad and also heard the learned counsel for the State. Admit. The opposite parties may file their counter affidavit within six weeks. List thereafter for hearing. The contention of the petitioners is that the Provisions of Section 5-A, Land Acquisition Act had been dispensed with in a malafide manner, although there was no urgency in requiring possession of the land belonging to them. This contention is fortified from the fact that notification under Section 6 of the Act has been issued, nine months after the notification under Section 4 was published. During these nine months, the petitioners should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing for filing objection under Section 5-A of the Act. His valuable right of lodging his protest has been taken away by the authority by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act. Considering the inordinate delay on the part of the development authority and following the principle of law laid down in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P., 1998 AIR(SC) 2504, we direct that the petitioners shall be given an opportunity of hearing as stipulated under Section 5-A of the Act by the authority before proceeding further under Section 6 of the Act to take possession over their property. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners as per court rules within two days.";