- (1.) A notification dated 24 July 2008 under Section 4(the Act) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Act was issued for acquisition of 105.5600 hectares of land situated in Village-Chipiyana Khurd alias Tigri, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri for planned industrial development in District Gautam Budh Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Greater Noida. This was followed by a declaration made on 29 January 2009 under Section 6 of the Act. The award was also made on 27 August 2011 by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Greater Noida the ADM. This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to declare that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 11-A of the Act. Further reliefs that have been sought are for quashing the award dated 27 August 2011 made by the ADM and for not only restoring the name of the petitioner in the revenue records but also restraining the State respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the land admeasuring 100 sq. yards situated in Khasra Plot No.57, Village-Chipiyana Khurd, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
(2.) The petitioner claims to have purchased 100 sq. yards of land situated in Khasra Plot No.57 from Leeladhar by a registered sale deed dated 17 January 2006. It is stated that the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records on 30 January 2014. It has further been stated that the total area of Khasra Plot No.57 was 0.7305 hectares, out of which 0.4770 hectares was acquired by the State in 2002-03 and the remaining area of Khasra Plot No.57 was subsequently acquired by issuance of the notification dated 24 July 2008 under Section 4(1) of the Act. The petitioner claims that the aforesaid acquisition proceedings initiated on 24 July 2008 were assailed by certain tenure-holders in Writ Petition No.41017 of 2011 which was decided with a number of Writ Petitions by a Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2011) (11) ADJ 1 . The said petition was marked in 'Group 27'. The acquisition was upheld by the Full Bench and the petitions were disposed of with certain directions contained in paragraph 482 of the judgment which is reproduced : "3. All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at (1) and (2) are disposed of with following directions: (a) The petitioners shall be entitled for payment of additional compensation to the extent of same ratio (i.e. 64.70%) as paid for village Patwari in addition to the compensation received by them under 1997 Rules/award which payment shall be ensured by the Authority at an early date. It may be open for Authority to take a decision as to what 4 2011 (11) ADJ 1 proportion of additional compensation be asked to be paid by allottees. Those petitioners who have not yet been paid compensation may be paid the compensation as well as additional compensation as ordered above. The payment of additional compensation shall be without any prejudice to rights of land owners under section 18 of the Act, if any. (b) All the petitioners shall be entitled for allotment of developed Abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 square meters. We however, leave it open to the Authority in cases where allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 6% or 8% have already been made either to make allotment of the balance of the area or may compensate the land owners by payment of the amount equivalent to balance area as per average rate of allotment made of developed residential plots. 4. The Authority may also take a decision as to whether benefit of additional compensation and allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10% be also given to ; (a) those land holders whose earlier writ petition challenging the notifications have been dismissed upholding the notifications; and (b) those land holders who have not come to the Court, relating to the notifications which are subject matter of challenge in writ petitions mentioned at direction No.3."
(3.) The petitioner asserts that he had not filed any writ petition to challenge the said acquisition proceedings and the petitioner acquired knowledge of the award only on 24 November 2016 when some documents were filed in Original Suit No.101 of 2014 that had been instituted by Harpyari against the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad for grant of mandatory injunction. It is stated that an affidavit was filed in said Original Suit on 10 January 2017 that the land had been acquired in the year 2009 and the name of the petitioner had been expunged. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained copies of the records on 20 January 2017 and found that the entries dated 30 January 2014 and 23 May 2014 made in favour of the petitioner in the revenue records had been expunged on 30 May 2015 and 28 December 2016. It is, therefore, asserted that the petitioner came to know only on 24 November 2016 that the award had been made.;