- (1.) THIS petition seeks the declaration that the acquisition of the plots in dispute has lapsed because of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act as well as the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act.
(2.) THE records of the writ petition indicate that the notification dated 17th April, 2002 under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued for acquisition of land measuring 7. 93 Acres situated in certain plots in Village Salarpur Khadar, Pargana Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar for planned industrial development in District Gautam Budh Nagar through New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'noida' ). It was also mentioned in the notification that since the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act were applicable to the said land inasmuch as the said land was urgently required for planned industrial development and it was also necessary to elminate the delay likely to be caused by the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the Governor had further directed under Section 17 (4) of the Act that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply. THE declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 28th June, 2003 mentioning therein that the Governor being satisfied that the case was one of the urgency, had directed under Section 17 (1) of the Act that the Collector, though no award under Section 11 had been made, could take possession of the land on expiration of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice under Section 9 (1) of the Act. The petitioner claims to have purchased area measuring 1-9-0 in Plot No. 675, area measuring 1-9-0 in Plot No. 676, area measuring 1-12-10 in Plot No. 677 and area measuring 0-16-10 in Plot No. 678 by four registered sale deeds, executed on 29th November, 1983. It has been stated by him in paragraph 6 of the petition that it was only on 19th April, 2008 when some officials of NOIDA came to the premises that the petitioner came to know that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been made and on making further enquiries came to know that the notice under Section 9 (1) of the Act had also been issued on 31st July, 2003. It is, however, the contention of the petitioner that he is still in possession of the plots referred to above. Sri S. P. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act and has submitted that the acquisition has lapsed since the award has not been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
(3.) SRI A. K. Mishra and SRI R. P. Singh, learned Counsel for NOIDA and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State of UP. , however, submitted that the petition is highly belated and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. They have also submitted that after the notice under Section 9 (1) of the Act was issued, possession of the land acquired was taken and delivered to the acquiring body on 31st March, 2004 and, therefore, in such circumstances when the land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances, the acquisition will not lapse as the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act will have no application. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.;