Jagdish Prasad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 10751 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jagdish Prasad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 September, 2025

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


			      (Per : Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.)
 

 
1. 	These three writ petitions arise out of similar set of facts and accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the writ petitions have been heard and are being disposed of by means of a common order.
 
2. 	Heard Shri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner in leading Writ C No.39268 of 2015; Shri Shiv Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners in connected Writ C No.20680 of 2016 and Shri Devbrat Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ C No.14804 of 2025 and respondents in Writ C Nos.39268 of 2015 and 20680 of 2016; Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel & Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for Ghaziabad Development Authority.
 
3. 	Jagdish Prasad, son of late Likhi Ram has preferred leading writ petition No.39268 of 2015 with prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.01.2014 passed by the State Government. Further prayer is made to issue direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the disputed land initiated in 1989 and in respect of which, award has been passed in 1991, as lapsed under Section 24 (2) of Act No.30 of 2013.
 
4.	The connected Writ C No.20680 of 2016 has been preferred by Ramveer, son of late Likhi Ram and 8 others, seeking following reliefs:-
 
i). A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the entire acquisition proceeding initiated under Section 4 (1)/17 dated 16.08.1988 with corrigendum dated 26.06.1989 and Section 6 dated 22.02.1989 with corrigendum dated 13.07.1989 as lapsed by virtue of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in respect of land being Khasra No.928/1, 930, 932/1, 933/1, 1033, 1036/4, 1038, 1041, 1042/1, 1052, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1063 and 1069 situated at Revenue Village Makanpur, District Ghaziabad.
 
II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the revenue authority i.e. Collector, Ghaziabad to expunge name of respondent no.4 from concerned revenue record and incorporate name of petitioners thereon.
 
5.	Shiksha Vihar Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. through its Secretary has preferred Writ C No.14804 of 2025 with request to issue direction commanding the Ghaziabad Development Authority (respondent no.2) to free hold the lease hold plot situated at Abhay Khand-II Indirapuram, Ghaziabad measuring area 30166.70 sqmtrs in favour of petitioner Society forthwith, as the Society had already deposited the requisite huge amount for free hold of the plot.
 
	FACTUAL MATRIX OF  WRIT C NO.39268 OF 2015 & 	NO.20680 OF 2016 
 
6.	The facts of the writ petitions are that late Likhi Ram alias Moola and late Parmal were owners of Khasra Nos.928/1, 930, 930/1, 933/1, 1033, 1036/4, 1038, 1041, 1042, 1052, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1063 and 1069, situated at Village Makhanpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 18941 was issued by the State Government on 16.08.1988 for planned development. The aforesaid notification was followed with declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 dated 22.02.1989 with corrigendum dated 13.07.1989 as urgency clause under Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act, 1894 was invoked and the lands in question were transferred to the Ghaziabad Development Authority2 vide possession memo dated 18.08.1989. The award is said to have been made on 30.07.1991. The details of the writ petitions filed by the parties are as under:-
 
I.	Initially, the father of the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.21901 of 1990 for quashing the notifications made under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 dated 16.08.1988 and 22.02.1989, notice issued under Section 9 of the Act, 1894 as well as the corrigendum dated 20.06.1989 published in the newspaper Jansatta dated 06.07.1989. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench on 09.11.1998 with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the Government for exclusion/release of the land on which his house is situated by filing an application stating the facts categorically and with supporting with any document or affidavit within three months. The State Government vide order dated 04.08.1999 had rejected the claim of the petitioner by holding that the acquisition of the subject land was given effect to strictly adhering to the provisions of law, the possession whereof was already taken on 18.08.1989, and the same was subsequently allotted for the development purposes. In the order dated 04.08.1999, the State Government had opined that it was not possible to de-notify the subject land of the petitioner (Likhi Ram).
 
II.	Likhi Ram filed another writ petition No.12403 of 2000 challenging the order dated 04.08.1999 passed by the State Government and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.11.2000 without any leave. After lapse of three months, Likhi Ram preferred another Writ Petition No.3091 of 2001 at Lucknow Bench of this Court, which too was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.04.2001. Another Writ Petition No.26473 of 2001 was also instituted by Likhi Ram, whereby he claimed lapsing of award under Section 11-A of the Act, 1894. The said writ petition was also dismissed as withdrawn on 31.10.2002. Thereafter, another Writ Petition No.25880 of 2003 was also instituted by Likhi Ram for de-notification of his holdings in pursuance of the Government orders dated 23.08.2002, 16.11.2002 and 07.05.2003, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 16.06.2003 with observation that the petitioner may institute a suit for permanent injunction. The order dated 16.06.2003 passed by learned Single Judge was assailed in Special Appeal No.536 of 2003. The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 03.07.2003 had allowed the Special Appeal and after setting aside the order dated 16.06.2003, the matter was remanded back for re-hearing on merits after giving hearing to the parties in accordance with law. Ultimately, the Writ Petition no.25880 of 2003 was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.12.2004.
 
III.	It is also relevant to indicate that Likhi Ram had instituted a Civil Suit No.780 of 2005 seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against interference in the subject property by the respondent. Meanwhile, the petitioners father died on 19.10.2005, whereupon the petitioner Jagdish Prasad inherited the aforesaid land as his son. The said suit was later on dismissed on 20.07.2011.
 
IV.	The brother of petitioner namely Sukhvir had also filed Writ Petition No.23938 of 1990 challenging the notifications issued against the subject land and the Division Bench vide its order dated 19.01.2005 had dismissed the writ petition, upholding the acquisition of the subject land. Against the judgment and order dated 19.01.2005, the review application was also filed and the same was rejected on 28.02.2005. He had also filed a Special Leave Petition No.11311-11312 of 2005 against the aforesaid judgment and the same was also dismissed by the Apex Court vide an order dated 02.09.2005. However, the petitioner was given liberty to represent the matter before the State Government.
 
V.	Sukhvir had instituted another Writ Petition No.35217 of 2010, whereby he had sought compensation in terms of Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20133. The said writ petition was disposed of vide an order dated 15.02.2016 with liberty to the petitioner to represent before the State Government.
 
VI.	Sukhvir had filed third Writ C No.155 of 2016 challenging the supplementary award dated 18.04.2015 and also to declare the entire land acquisition proceedings belonging to his land having been lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench on 17.03.2016.
 
VII.	The petitioner namely Jagdish Prasad had preferred a Writ C No.35542 of 2011 (Jagdish Prasad vs. State of UP and others), which was disposed of by the Division Bench on 09.10.2012, with the following observations:-
 
It appears to this Court that the land of the petitioner is not reflecting in the notice issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. So, it is not clear as to whether the land of the petitioner has been acquired or not. However, the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court. Affidavits have been exchanged. Some facts have been brought to the notice of the Court, which imply the validity of the acquisition proceeding in respect of the petitioner's land in question. However, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad has said that acquisition has been made in their favour.
 
Against this background, we are of the view that the State is the appropriate authority to come to an appropriate conclusion independently, particularly when so many observations have been made by the State as against the acquisition of the land of the petitioner in question. It is contended on behalf of the Ghaziabad Development Authority that they are in possession of land in question, to which learned counsel for the petitioner has very strongly objected. We are not going into such controversy.
 
Let the matter be considered by the State Government upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad and by passing a reasoned order thereon, within a period of one month from the of communication of this order. However, status-quo in respect of the land in question will be maintained till one week from the date of communication of the order passed by the State Government.
 
With the aforesaid observation and orders, the writ petition is disposed of, however, without any order as to costs.
 

 
VIII.	In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner made a representation before the State Government on 01.11.2012. By the impugned order dated 29.01.2024, the State Government had rejected the petitioners representation dated 01.11.2012, which is under challenge in the leading writ petition.
 

 
	FACTUAL MATRIX OF WRIT C NO.14804 OF 2025
 
7.	Shiksha Vihar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., a registered Co-operative Housing Society, was formed with an objective to provide residential plots to its members and hence, purchased a piece of land in Village Makanpur, Ghaziabad, U.P. for the said purpose. A portion of the land admeasuring 12.5 acres of the Society was acquired by the GDA by its Boards resolution dated 03.09.1990 in Indirapuram Housing Residential Scheme with a specific understanding that 60% developed land would be allotted to the Society for proposed objective in lieu of the acquired land of 12.5 acres. No compensation for the land would be paid to the Society and the Society will have to pay the development charge of the land to GDA accordingly.
 
8.	Thereafter the Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad by his letter dated 24.12.1991 informed the GDA that the compensation for the acquired land would come to Rs.82,41,389.95 and further recommended that the said amount be adjusted in favour of GDA. Subsequently, the GDA vide its letter dated 30.06.1992 had allotted 7.5 acres of developed land to the Society @ 1164.19 per sq. metre as development charges with certain conditions and Rs.3,53,27,649/- was to be paid by the Society. The GDA was not in a position to deliver the possession of 7.5 acres of the developed land to the Society till 1998. After one year the Executive Engineer of GDA vide letter dated 21.7.1999 informed the Society that it was proposed to allot land to the Society in Abhaykhand in Indirapuram Housing Scheme. However, the saleable area of 7.5 acres of land comes to 4.5 acres of land and the demand of Rs.3,46,86,430/- was raised after deducting the amount deposited by the Society. Despite payments of Rs.1,85,00,000/- and Rs.82,41,389/-, once the possession of the land was not delivered, the Society preferred Original Petition No.85 of 2002 (Shiksha Vihar Sehkari Avaas Samiti Ltd. vs. The Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority and another) before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi4 and the same was allowed by NCDRC, New Delhi vide judgment and order dated 27.08.2007 with following observations/directions:-
 
In this view of the matter, this complaint is allowed and is is directed that:-
 
(i)	Within a period of 60 days from today, the GDA shall give clear title and shall execute the necessary documents for the land of which possession is given to the complainant. If there is any unauthorised occupant, that shall be removed by the GDA within a period of 60 days from the date of this order.
 
	It would be the personal responsibility of the Secretary of the GDA to implement the aforesaid directions.
 
(ii)	The claim of the GDA to recover interest on the sum of Rs.3,53,27,649/- is unjustifiable, and therefore, the same is rejected.
 
(iii)	for the unusual harassment to the complainant the GDA shall pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) as compensation to the complainant. It would be open to the GDA to recover the same from the officers as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority (supra).
 
9.	The said order was challenged by the GDA in Civil Appeal No.5631 of 2007 (Ghaziabad Devt. Authority & another vs. Shiksha Vihar Sehkari A. Samiti Ltd. & another). Honble Apex Court had refused to interfere with the judgment of NCDRC, New Delhi and dismissed the aforesaid Civil Appeal vide its order dated 20.01.2009. However, the Apex Court deleted the various observations made against the GDA as also the costs/compensation awarded. Ultimately the respondent no.4 executed a lease deed of the plots in question in favour of the Society on 31.03.2010. Further, the GDA also removed all the encroachments from the plots in question and the possession had also been given to the Society vide transfer possession memo dated 29.10.2005. The Society had also constructed a boundary wall on the entire area in question. The Society applied for conversion of the aforesaid lease hold plot into a free hold plot. The GDA vide demand notice dated 18.05.2015 had raised a demand of Rs.5 crores as free hold conversion charges and the Society had already deposited the aforesaid amount but the GDA has not converted the aforesaid lease hold plot into free hold plot, giving rise to connected Writ C No.14804 of 2025.
 
	ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
 
10.	Shri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner in Writ C No.39268 of 2015 filed by Jagdish Prasad had submitted that the land in dispute is residential land and the petitioner is in actual and physical possession of the land. He submitted that the State Government had erred in law while passing the impugned order dated 29.01.2014 and had not considered the evidences, which were submitted by the petitioner in support of his representation dated 01.11.2012. The State Government had only considered the ground that under the Act, 1894, the acquisition proceedings were validly drawn; after taking possession, the land was given for public purpose to the GDA; later on, the GDA had also executed transfer deed in favour of the allottees and therefore, the land could not be restored.
 
11.	Shri Khan, learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the petitioner was never dispossessed in accordance with law and continued to be in actual physical possession over the disputed land. He submitted that neither the compensation was paid to his late father nor the same had been deposited in the bank under Section 31 of the Act, 1894 in the Court of District Judge, Ghaziabad and as such, the entire proceeding was lapsed. In support of his submission, he had placed reliance on the judgements in Bharat Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others (1988) 4 SCC 534; Gajraj v. State of UP 2011 (11) ADJ 1 and Civil Appeal No.24 of 2009 (M/s Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & another vs. State of UP & another) decided on 14.10.2022 (paras 15, 16 & 17).
 
12.  	Shri Devbrat Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ C No.14804 of 2025 and newly impleaded respondent in other two writ petitions, submitted that the GDA acquired the land of the Society and promised to deliver the developed area in lieu of the acquired land after recovering development charges. The amount of compensation to be paid to the Society on account of land acquisition was retained by the GDA. The allotment was made in favour of the Society in the year 1992 with the specific conditions that the payment of development charges shall be paid as per the schedule of payment and also that the construction over the said land shall be completed latest by 29.06.1997. Pursuant to the allotment of the entire area to the Society, the GDA demanded certain development charges from the Society.
 
13.	Shri Devbrat Mukherjee further submitted that the Society had filed Original Petition No.85 of 2002 before the NCDRC, New Delhi in which an interim order was passed on 29.10.2005 directing the GDA to deliver the possession of the plot in question to the Society. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 29.10.2005, the GDA delivered physical possession of the plots in question to the Society on 29.10.2005. Finally, the aforesaid Original Application was allowed by the NCRDC, New Delhi on 27.08.2007. The said order was challenged in Civil Appeal No.5631 of 2007, which was dismissed by Honble Apex Court vide order dated 20.01.2009. Ultimately, the GDA had executed a lease deed of the plots in question in favour of the Society on 31.03.2010. The Society applied for conversion of the aforesaid lease hold plot into a free hold plot. The GDA vide demand notice dated 18.05.2015 raised a demand of Rs.5 crores as free hold conversion charges, which was already deposited but the GDA has not converted the aforesaid lease hold plot into free hold plot.
 
14.	Shri Devbrat Mukherjee further submitted that neither the petitioners are in possession over the land in dispute nor have any subsisting interest over the five plots viz. plot nos.1052, 1054, 1055, 1058 and 1063, which form part of the area allotted to the Society. In fact, the possession has already been transferred to the Society and the GDA also removed all the trespassers from the plots in question. The Society is in exclusive possession over the plots in question.   
 
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF GDA
 
15.	Per contra, Shri Tejasvi Mishra, learned counsel for the GDA vehemently opposed the writ petitions and also raised an objection qua the maintainability of the writ petition inasmuch as the father of the petitioner had not only preferred repeated writ petitions before this Court as well as Lucknow Bench of this Court. The father of the petitioner was fully conscious of the fact that the award was made on 30.07.1991 against which he had sought reference on 06.09.1991 under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, which was later on registered as LAR No.239 of 1991. The said reference was filed seeking enhancement in the award already declared on 30.07.1991 against Khasra Nos.507, 510, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 533, 547, 665, 669, 928/1, 930, 932/1, 933/1, 1033, 1036/4, 1038, 1041, 1042, 1052, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1063M, 1069, 1115, 1118, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1132, 1133, 1144 and 1145.
 
16.	Shri Tejasvi Mishra further submitted that as on date, the aforesaid reference is still pending before the concerned Court; successive dates were fixed and lastly, it was fixed on 22.08.2025. Even though the acquisition proceedings had been approved upto Apex Court and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the acquisition would lapse under Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013. The petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously. On one hand, the petitioners father had sought reference on 06.09.1991 under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 registered as LAR No.239/1991, which is stated to be pending consideration and on the other hand, in the present writ petition, he has prayed lapsing of acquisition of the land under Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013. He had heavily relied upon the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench dated 19.01.2005 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.23938 of 1990, which was instituted by the petitioners brother Sukhbir, son of Moola.
 

 
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE RESPONDENT 
 
17.	Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the writ petitions and reiterated the objections so taken in the counter affidavit, which had been filed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Ghaziabad way back in the year 2016. He submitted that for planned development (Indirapuram Residential Scheme of Ghaziabad), the notification dated 16.08.1988 and the revised notification dated 26.06.1989 under Section 4/17 of the Act, 1894 were issued acquiring huge chunk of the land including the land of the petitioners father. The revised notification under Section 6/17 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 31.07.1989 acquiring the petitioners aforesaid land. He vehemently contended that the possession was taken way back on 01.06.1990 after making payment of 80% of estimated compensation to the petitioners father, who received the same on 25.06.1990 and the award was declared on 31.07.1991. The name of the respondents is also recorded in the revenue record. After declaration of the award the remaining compensation was deposited in the District Court, Ghaziabad in accordance with procedure provided in Section 31 of the Act, 1894. In support of his submission, he had placed reliance on Form CC, which has been brought on record as Annexure No.1 to the counter affidavit.
 
18.	Shri Ambrish Shukla further submitted that the successive writ petitions had been preferred by the petitioners father and his brother. Even on merit, the Division Bench had already rejected the challenge to the acquisition in Writ C No.23938 of 1990 (Sukhvir s/o Moola vs. State of UP and others), wherein each and every grounds, which are pressed here, were also pressed and the Division Bench had not accepted the challenge to the acquisition proceedings and dismissed the same vide judgment and order dated 19.01.2005. Later on, the judgment had been approved by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No.11311-11312 of 2005 and the same was also dismissed by the Apex Court vide an order dated 02.09.2005. He submitted that at this stage, once the land was acquired for planned development, the acquisition proceedings were challenged in various writ petitions before the Division Bench, which had already considered and negated the challenge qua the possession and the award, hence no such challenge can be accepted now. In the instant matter, as the urgency clause was invoked and the possession was taken, the State Government has rightly rejected the claim on the ground that once the land has been vested in the State free from all encumbrances, the said land cannot be divested. As such, the writ petitions have no force and liable to be dismissed with costs.  
 
	ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
 
19.	We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents
 
20.	Admittedly, the land of the petitioner was not included in the initial notification dated 16.08.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894. A corrigendum of Section 4 of Act, 1894 was also issued by the State Government on 26.06.1989 with respect to the land not included in the initial notification. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had passed award dated 30.07.1991 under Section 11 of Act, 1894 in respect of the land notified on 16.08.1988. The award was passed determining compensation of land @ Rs.90 per Sq.yards. Further with respect to the land in question, no award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 has been passed. Ultimately a supplementary award has been passed on 18.04.2015 i.e. after promulgation of Act, 2013 and after passing of period more than one year and three and a half months from its implementation on 01.01.2014.
 
21.	A Writ Petition No.23938 of 1990 was filed by Sukhvir, challenging the notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 dated 18.8.1988; the declaration  dated 22.2.1989 as well as the consequential corrigendum dated 26.6.1989 issued in this regard and for a direction commanding the respondents to proceed for acquisition only after obtaining approval of Bhumi Udyog Parishad after affording opportunity to the petitioner, as required under Section 5A of the Act. Initially, the Division Bench had entertained the writ petition and passed an interim order on 12.09.1990, staying the dispossession of the petitioner from the plots in question. In the said proceeding, the petitioner had raised following questions before the Division Bench:-
 
(i)	That the acquisition is bad inasmuch as it is in violation of the provisions of the National Capital Region Act:
 
(ii)	That the proceedings of acquisition are invalid inasmuch as most of the plots in question did not find place in the notification under Section 4 and were brought by way of corrigendum after the notification under Section 6 was published which could not have been done inasmuch as the notification under Section 4 is a precondition before acquisition can be made finally under Section 6;
 
(iii)	That the acquisition is bad as it violates Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973;
 
(iv)	That the acquisition deserves to be invalidated inasmuch as Section 5-A was wrongly dispensed with; and finally
 
(v)	That the land of the petitioner had certain constructions standing thereon much prior to the date of acquisition and, as such, the same deserves to be included being abadi land.
 

 
22.	Finally, the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 19.01.2005 had dismissed the writ petition, with detailed observations. For ready reference, relevant paragraph-9 of the judgment is reproduced herein below:-
 
9.	At the very outset it is to be noted that the notification presently under challenge was subject matter of the other connected writ petitions which writ petitions have been dismissed. The details whereof as disclosed to us at the bar is hereunder:
 
(i)	Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.16779 of 1989, Laxman and another vs. the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad and other dismissed on 24.9.1997;
 
(ii)	Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.16781 of 1989, Mangoo Khan and another vs. The Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad and other dismissed on 24.9.1997; and
 
(iii)	Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.21901 of 1990, Likhi Ram alias Moola and others vs. State of UP and others, dismissed with observation on 09.11.1998.
 
It is noteworthy to mention that the petitioners father Likhi Ram alias Moola, who was also a tenure holder, had challenged the said notification and his writ petition was dismissed on 9.11.1998 as indicated herein above with the observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a representation before the Government for exclusion/release of the land on which his house is situate. The said writ petition No.21901 of 1990 was also in respect of plot no.928/1, which is also one of the plots presently in question in the instant writ petition. It is also evident that the petitioners father moved some representations for exclusion of the land on which, his house was situate and which representation was rejected on 04.8.1999 against which Likhi Ram alias Moola filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12403 of 2000 which was got dismissed as not pressed on 15.11.2000. It has also been brought to our notice that Likhi Ram alias Moola had filed a writ petition in respect of the same controversy being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3091 of 2000 (MB) at the Lucknow Bench, which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 17.04.2001. Another writ petition was filed being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.26473 of 2001, which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 31.10.2002. The last of such writ petitions was filed by Likhi Ram being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.25880 of 2003 which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 15.12.2004. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that we are proceeding to examine the validity of the notification under question.
 
10.	Shri W.H. Khan on the first point advanced by him has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Ravindra Singh and others vs. State of UP and others, 1997 (1) AWC 54, to support his submission that the acquisition proceedings deserve to be invalidated as the development which is sought to be made would violate the provisions of National Capital Region Planning Act, 1985. For the aforesaid purpose Shri Khan has relied on the fact that the regional plan, which has been prepared by the National Capital Regional Board on 21.7.1987, is prior to the date of notification under Sections 4 and 6 presently under challenge. Shri W.H. Khan has urged that in view of the fact that since the plan had been sanctioned, and the sanction of the said plan indicates different user of the land from the purpose which has been shown by the respondents under the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, the purpose for which the land has been acquired obviously violates the Plan of National Capital Region Board and, as such, the acquisition is invalid.
 
11.	A perusal of the said decision relied on behalf of the petitioner indicates that even though the acquisition proceedings were upheld yet directions were issued to ensure that the planning of the National Capital Region Board is not jeopardized. In the instant case, no such situation has arisen so as to warrant the assumption of any such violation, which in our considered opinion can be taken care of by the authorities while proceeding to make development. The acquisition having been made under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the same not being invalid as would be evidence from our findings recorded hereinafter cannot be questioned on the aforesaid ground.
 
12.	We find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents who has cited before us the case of Bhagat Singh vs. State of UP (1999) 2 SCC 384. Paragraph no.22 of the said judgement is extracted herein below:
 
13.	The Scheme for acquisition of a total area 1287.78 acre of land was proposed for the purpose of construction of residential house and multi-storied buildings which proposal was approved. The Notification was made as disclosed in para-6 of the writ petition and possession was taken where after the scheme known as Indirapuram Scheme was sought to be developed. The corrigendum issued was only done to rectify the mistake, as the plot in question was already included in the acquisition proceedings. This fact is substantiated by the subsequent publications made including the possession certificate and possession memo made. The contention of the petitioner that there was no valid notification under Section 4, therefore, deserves to be rejected.
 
14.	Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited 2 decisions in the case of Smt. Somawanti and others vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1963 SC 151 and Narendrajit Singh and another vs. the State of U.P. and others, AIR 1971 SC 306, for the aforesaid proposition. However, on the facts of this case the aforesaid proposition is not attracted inasmuch as the plots in questions were included in the proceedings initially and are not a subsequent introduction as alleged by the petitioner.
 
15.	The next contention of the petitioner is that the entire proceedings are in violation of Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act. There is no material to indicate that there is any such violation as alleged by the petitioner. The said contention, therefore, also deserves to be rejected.
 
16.	The fourth contention of the petitioner is that the dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A was not justified. For that the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that other schemes were also floated but the respondent-Development Authority did not proceed to develop the schemes on the land acquired for the said purpose and, as such, there was no urgency to come up with a third scheme without giving any option to file objection to the tenure holders. It has been further submitted that since the notification under Section 6 has been made after a long gap of time i.e. almost after 6 months, therefore, there does not appear any justification for dispensing with the inquiry.
 
17.	Shri Khan has relied on paras 28 and 29 of the writ petition and has further invited our attention to the counter-affidavit and has urged that there being no effective denial to the averments contained in the writ petition, this Court should presume that there was no urgency for the acquisition and, therefore, 5-A was wrongly dispensed with. The learned counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the case of State of U.P. vs. Pista Devi and others, AIR 1986 SC 2025, wherein it has been held that a scheme for residential colony is a public purpose of grave urgency. We find ourselves in agreement with the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. It is further noteworthy to mention that it is not the case of the petitioner that there was absolutely no material before the State Government so as to invoke the urgency clause. There is no averment in the writ petition to that effect. Shri W.H. Khan has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Mukesh Hans, (2004) 8 SCC 14, wherein the law relating to dispossession of 5A has been explained. We have examined the aforesaid decision and we find that the same is not applicable on the facts of this case. In the case of Mukesh Hans the land, which was sought to be acquired, had been also subject matter of acquisition proceeding earlier, which had been abandoned. It was also found as a matter of fact therein that there was no material before the Lt. Governor, Delhi so as to indicate any application of mind for dispensing with the inquiry. In the present case there is no pleading at all in the writ petition and, as such, there is absolutely no similarity between the instant case and the case relied upon by the petitioner. In view of this, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner also deserves to be rejected. The counter-affidavit indicates that there was sufficient material for proceeding to acquire the land which was urgently needed for the development of Indira Puram Scheme.
 
	The contention that other schemes still remain undeveloped and, therefore, the acquisition was invalid cannot be accepted, as it is well known that such schemes are either subjected unnecessary litigation or on account of paucity of fund the development is delayed. The other submission that there ____of 6 months in the notification under Section 6 also indicates that the matter was not urgent does not appeal to reason. The learned counsel for the respondents has rightly relied on the decision of Murari vs. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 15.
 
18.	That last contention of the petitioner is that since the constructions of the petitioner stand on the land which is sought to be acquired and that the said construction was there very prior to the date of acquisition, the same deserves to be excluded and exempted. It is by now well settled that a land can only be exempted from acquisition proceeding only by taking recourse to Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act and not otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision rendered by this Court with regard to very same notification in the case of his father decided on 9.11.1998 and has urged that the petitioner should also be given the same liberty to make a representation to the Government in this regard. As already noted hereinabove, in the opening paragraph of the judgment, the representation filed by the petitioners father had been rejected by the State Government and the writ petition filed by the petitioners father against the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Even otherwise it is now clear from a perusal of the provisions of Section 48 that the land can only be de-notified provided the possession has not been taken over. In the instant case, the possession has been taken over by the respondents with regard to which a complete facts and documents have been brought on record including the possession memo which has been filed along with counter-affidavit of the respondent no.3. In view of the aforesaid fact also, we see no reason to extend any such benefit to the petitioner and, as such, the said contention of the petitioner also deserves to be rejected.
 
19.	Apart from the aforesaid reasons, it would be worthwhile to record that the same notification, which was subject matter of challenge, has already been upheld in the other writ petitions. No new or any other legality sustainable reason is available to the petitioner to maintain the instant writ petition. The acquisition proceedings having been already upheld by this Court, it does not appeal to reason that the same deserve any interference by us at the instance of the petitioner in the present writ petition which appears to have been left out from being decided for one reason or the other alongwith the connected writ petitions.
 
20.	In view of the aforesaid conclusions, we see no merit in the writ petition, which stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
 
	
 
23.	The Division Bench while dismissing the aforesaid writ petition had also considered the previous challenge to the same acquisition in three writ petitions, which are averred in para-9 of the said judgment. The aforementioned judgment and order has been affirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated 02.09.2005 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s).11311-11312/2005 (Sukhvir vs. State of UP & ors) with following observations:-
 
We are not inclined to interfere in this matter. It is brought to our notice that in the case of petitioners father, some relief was granted. It shall be open to the petitioner to make a representation to the Government for such relief as is available in law. It is open to the authority to consider the representation. The special leave petitions are dismissed accordingly.
 

 
24.	We further find that Sukhvir had also filed Writ C No.155 of 2016 challenging the supplementary award dated 18.04.2015 prepared by the Additional District Magistrate (Irrigation), Ghaziabad and to declare the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 belonging to the petitioner stood lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013. The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 17.03.2016 had proceeded to dispose of the writ petition with the directions that proceedings of land acquisition will remain to continue in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced herein below:-
 
21. A perusal of supplementary award dated 18.04.2015 shows that there is following recitals in it :
 

 
(i) After completion of all necessary formalities and obtaining approval of rates from Board of Revenue on 29.07.1991, award was declared on 30.07.1991 but due to pendency of writ petition No.21917 of 1990 (Sukhbir Vs. State of U.P.) before this Court, award could not be declared in respect of land numbers referred above i.e. land in question. It may also be clarified here that aforesaid writ petition does not belong to Sukhbir rather it has been filed by one D.R.Tyagi, and was decided on 20.11.2009.
 
(ii) This award is being declared in continuity of original award dated 30.07.1991 and be part of that.
 
(iii) According to amended provisions of Section 11A of Act, 1894, if within two years from the date of the publication of the declaration, any court has stayed proceedings of acquisition then the period during which the order of stay remained operative, shall be excluded for computing the period of two years. As in this matter, writ petition was pending before Hon'ble High Court, therefore, petitioner cannot get any benefit for the above period.
 
(iv) It is directed in the supplementary award that cost of land acquisition Rs.2,53,056/- and 40 times of land rent be deposited in the appropriate head after its recovery from the acquiring body.
 
(v) If any property is available on the above land numbers then compensation of that will be paid by the land acquiring body at his own level.
 

 
22. It is clear from above referred recitals of supplementary award that no award in respect of land in question has been passed earlier to the supplementary award and if there was no award in respect of the above land then there is no occasion for passing of supplementary award in respect of the award dated 30.7.1991, which is nonest in respect of land in question i.e. land numbers mentioned in it.
 

 
23. It is further clear that till passing of supplementary award i.e. 18.4.2015, no compensation was paid to the petitioner or his predecessor because as per recitals of supplementary award it is evident that award could not be declared due to pendency of case before this Court. Even, for the sake of argument, claim of respondent regarding taking over actual possession of the land in question assumed to be true then the same will be in contravention of the provisions of Section 31, as has been quoted earlier. Under Section 17 of Act, 1894 it is provided that in the urgency matter, prior to taking over possession of the land, payment of 80 percent compensation will be made to the land holders. For ready reference, provisions of Section 17(1) as well as 17(3A) of Act, 1894 read thus :
 
 
 
"17. Special powers in cases of urgency.- (1) In cases of urgency, whenever the *[appropriate Government] so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in section 9, sub-section (1), **[take possession of any waste or arable land needed for a public purpose. Such land shall thereupon ***[vest absolutely in the ****[Government]], free from all encumbrances.
 
.

*****[(3A) Before taking possession of any land under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Collector shall, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3),--

(a) tender payment of eighty per centum of the compensation for such land as estimated by him to the persons interested entitled thereto, and

(b) pay it to them, unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in section 31, sub-section (2), and where the Collector is so prevented, the provisions of section 31, sub-section (2), (except the second proviso thereto), shall apply as they apply to the payment of compensation under that section."]

*Subs.by the A.O. 1950, for "Provincial Government"

** Subs. by Act 68 of 1984, sec.13, for certain words (w.e.f. 24-9-1984)

***Subs. by A.O. 1937, for "vest absolutely in the Government"

**** Subs. by A.O. 1950, for "Crown"

***** Ins. by Act 68 of 1984, sec. 13 (w.e.f. 24-9-1984)

24. Article 300A of the Constitution of India also provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without any authority of law. Article 300A of the Constitution reads as follows :

"Article 300A - Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law : No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."

25. The position which emerges is that no award has been passed in respect of land in question before 18.04.2015 under the Act, 1894. That Act was repealed by Act, 2013 which came into force on 01.01.2014 by which Act, 1894 was repealed. It also emerges from record that no compensation was paid to the petitioner or deposited before 18.4.2015.

26. The provisions of Section 24 of Act, 2013, which are very much relevant to decide the controversy, involved in this case read thus :

"24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1) of 1894),-

(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or

(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

(Emphasis Supplied by us)

27. There is no whisper by the respondents that above payment was made to the petitioner or his predecessor while petitioner is clearly denying that he has not received any compensation in respect of his land from the respondents as such alleged taking of possession over land in question by the respondent is not in accordance with law and violative of provisions of Section 31, 17(3) of Act, 1894 and Article 300 of Constitution and that cannot be treated legal possession over the disputed land.

28. As no award in respect of land in dispute has ever been passed before five years of the enforcement of Act, 2013 or ever, therefore, this case does not come under the ambit of Section 24(2) of Act, 2013.

29. Admittedly, the proceedings of acquisition of land in question have been taken place during applicability of Act, 1894 as such this case is squarely covered under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of Act, 2013.

30. This matter is very old one relating to the acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1989 therefore, it deserves to be paid special attention and prompt action.

31. For all the reasons and discussions made above, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions that proceedings of land acquisition will remain continue in accordance with law i.e. according to provisions of Act, 2013. The respondent authorities are directed to take necessary steps in compliance of the concerned provisions without any further delay.

32. No order as to costs.

25. This much is also reflected from the record that the petitioners father and brother had also filed successive writ petitions and the same had been dismissed as withdrawn without granting any leave by the Division Bench.

26. The respondents had also filed the counter affidavit in the leading Writ C No.39268 of 2015 indicating therein that the original tenure holder of the land in question was petitioners father Likhi Ram alias Moola and co-tenure holder was Parmal Kumar. They were paid 80% of the estimated compensation of Rs.27,63,200/-, which was received by them on 25.06.1990. The notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1894 was also issued on 03.08.1989. The land was vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The land in question was transferred to the GDA on 19.08.1989 and the possession was delivered to the GDA on 01.06.1990. The land in question has been allotted by the GDA to the allottees by executing sale deeds.

27. We are surprised to note that admittedly, the petitioners father, who was aggrieved with the quantum of compensation, had sought reference on 06.09.1991 under Section 18 of the Act, 2013, which was later on registered as LAR No.239 of 1991. The reference was filed seeking enhancement in the award already declared on 30.07.1991. Nowhere it is disputed by the petitioner that the said reference was not moved by the father of the petitioner, which was later on registered as LAR No.239 of 1991 as learned counsel for the GDA had also reiterated the supplementary affidavit, which was filed on 20.07.2025. For ready reference, para-3 of the supplementary affidavit is also reproduced herein under:-

3. That before adverting to the litigations entered into by the petitioner and his predecessors, it would be appropriate to question the maintainability of the present writ petition inasmuch as the father of the petitioner has sought reference on 06.09.1991 under Section 18, which was subsequently registered as LAR No.239/1. This reference was filed seeking enhancement in the award already declared on 30.07.1991 against the Khasra Nos.507, 510, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 533, 547, 665, 669, 928/1, 930, 932/1, 933/1, 1033, 1036/4, 1038, 1041, 1042, 1052, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1063M, 1069, 115, 118, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1132, 1133, 1144 and 1145.

As on date the aforesaid reference is pending before the concerned Court and the next date fixed is 22.08.2025, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to seek lapsing under Section 24 (2) of Act No.30 of 2013 cannot be granted inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be allowed to seek enhancement and lapsing at the same time. A copy of the application under Section 18 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.SA-1 to this affidavit.

28. Learned counsel for the petitioner had not refuted, even during the course of the argument, the categorical averments made in para-3 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the GDA. We find that in the instant proceeding, no case is made out in favour of the petitioners to re-open the old acquisition, which has already attained finality upto the Apex Court. Moreso, the petitioners father, who was aggrieved with the quantum of the compensation, had preferred the aforementioned reference which is also pending consideration.

29. We do not find any merit in the challenge to the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners are at liberty to press the reference already pending before the Competent Court. The challenge to the acquisition and the prayer of the petitioners to seek lapsing under Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013 is devoid of merit and accordingly, Writ C No.39268 of 2015 filed by Jagdish Prasad and Writ C No.20680 of 2016 filed by Ramveer and others are dismissed. The instant order would not have any bearing in the ongoing proceeding before the competent Court in LAR No.239 of 1991.

30. So far as the prayer made in connected Writ C No.14804 of 2025 filed by Shiksha Vihar Sahkari Avas Samiti is concerned, we find that the GDA had executed a lease deed of the plots in question in favour of the Society on 31.03.2010. The Society applied for conversion of the aforesaid lease hold plot into a free hold plot, which has not been converted till date. Accordingly, the leave is accorded to the petitioner Society to press the relief before the Vice Chairman of GDA.

31. Accordingly, the connected Writ C No.14804 of 2025 stands disposed of.