Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri M. G. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Initially, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the opposite party no.-3 contained as Annexure No.-1 to this writ petition whereby a ludicrous amount of compensation has been awarded to the petitioner after or on 24.04.2017 as mentioned in impugned order. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay the compensation for the recorded land in the name of petitioner over which the building of Tehsil-Tulsipur has been constructed or land having equal value may be made available to the petitioner for construction of an abode in the same vicinity in the interest of justice. (iii) Issue any other Writ, Order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the Petition in favour of the petitioner."
(3.) Thereafter, by way of an amendment, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "(v) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the entire acquisition proceeding in respect of the purchased land of the petitioner as mentioned in Annexure No.2 of this writ petition braring part of Khasara No.446 Min situated in revenue Village Patan, Tehsil - Tulsipur, District - Balrampur as the same has been lapsed in pursuance of legal corollary arrived u/s 11-A of the land acquisition Act 1894 so far as it relates to the petitioner's land and this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the opposite parties to pay due compensation to the petitioner as per existing law i.e., The right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition and transparency in land acquisition, re-habilitation and re-settlement act 2013 after adopting due procedure and manner of acquisition set out there in, the interest of justice." The case of the petitioner is that her land measuring 0.002 acres was acquired in the year 2006 and the award too was passed on 20.6.2006 but no compensation was paid to her. At the first instance, the same was offered on 28.4.2017. It is asserted that in light of the provisions of Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the entire land acquisition proceedings stood lapsed and as such the respondents either are required to pay compensation to the petitioner at the market rate existing now with solatium and all other benefits as prescribed under the Act aforesaid or to hand over possession of the land in question to the petitioner. As per counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State, the land in question was acquired for construction of Tehsil Building at Tulsipur Tehsil and notification under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the year 2001 and thereafter, notification under Section 6 (1) read with Section 17 was published on 28.1.2001. Thereafter, the possession of the land was taken over on 6.1.2003 whereas the Award was passed on 20.6.2006. Further, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the land was acquired by invoking urgency clause and therefore 80% compensation amount was deposited and disbursed to the tenure holders prior to taking possession of the land and the acquired land was transferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gonda to the District Magistrate, Gonda for construction of Tehsil building. After declaration of Award and fixation of the compensation from the date of possession for one year interest at the rate of 9% and thereafter 15% yearly is payable as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. So far as the notifications under Sections- 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act and the award dated 20.06.2006 are concerned and the ground of challenge to the same of no award having been made within a period of two years and consequently taking into consideration Section 11(A) of the 1894 Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse, is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Section-11(A) of the 1894 Act provides no exception or exclusion and that once admittedly the award under Section 11 was made beyond a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land have lapsed. Section 11(A) provides that the Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. Admittedly, in the instant case, the date of the publication of the declaration is of the year 2001 and even the public notice as provided under Section-6(2) of the 1894, Act was made on 28.01.2001. Consequently, as per the petitioner, the award should have been made at least by 27.01.2003 failing which, in terms of Section 11(A) the proceedings have lapsed. Having considered the arguments raised on the point of Sections-11 and 11A of the 1894 Act what we find is that in the instant case, the notification under Section 4 of the 1894, Act was made along with Section 17 of the 1894, Act whereby indicating that the provisions of Section 5(A) of the 1894, Act shall not apply. Likewise when the declaration under Section 6 was issued on 28.01.2001, the same was also issued along with Section 17 of the Act meaning thereby that the urgency clause had been invoked by the Government while issuing the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894, Act and consequently, the possession of the land passed to the Government and stood vested in the Government. The Apex Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain and others v. State of U.P. and others [(1993) 4 SCC 369] has observed that the provisions of Section 11-A are intended to benefit the land owner and ensure that the award is made within a period of two years from the date of Section 6 declaration and has distinguished the cases where Section 17 (1) of the Act is invoked and decision is taken which leads the vesting of the land in Government. Section 17 (3-A) postulates that the owner will be offered an amount equivalent to 80 per cent of the estimated compensation for the land before the Government takes possession of it under Section 17 (1) . Section 11-A cannot be so construed as to leave the Government holding title to the land without the obligation to determine compensation, make an award and pay to the owner the difference between the amount of the award and the amount of 80 per cent of the estimated compensation. When Section 17(1) is applied by reason of urgency, 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. Section 11-A in such cases can have no application when the lands have already vested in the Government and there is no provision in the said Act by which land statutorily vested in the Government can revert to the owner. Once possession of the land was taken by the Government accordingly keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain (supra), it cannot be said that the proceedings stood lapsed in view of Section-11A of the 1894 Act. The reason for the same has been discussed threadbare by the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that Section 11(A) can have no application to cases of acquisition under Section-17 because the land stands vested in the Government and there is no provision in the Act by which land statutorily vested in the Government can revert to the owner. For the sake of convenience, the law laid down in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain (supra) is reproduced as under- "Ordinarily, the Government can take possession of the land proposed to be acquired only after an award of compensation in respect thereof has been made under Section 11. Upon the taking of possession the land vests in the Government that is to say, the owner of the land loses to the Government the title to it. This is what Section 16 states. The provisions of Section 11-A are intended to benefit the land owner and ensure that the award is made within a period of two years from the date of Section 6 declaration. In the ordinary case, therefore, when Government fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government and its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings are still pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section 11-A, lapse. When Section 17(1) is applied by reason of urgency, 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. Section 17(1) states so in unmistakable terms. Clearly, Section 11-A can have no application to cases of acquisition under Section 17 because the lands have already vested in the Government and there is no provision in the said Act by which land statutorily vested in the Government can revert to the owner". ;