Jai Prakash Kasana and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

G.P. Mathur, J.—Following two prayers have been made in the writ petition :

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to correctly assess the compensation and to pay the same with interest from the date possession was taken of the land in question from the petitioners i.e., 10.6.1997.

Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the land acquisition proceedings with regard to land in question as has been lapsed u/s 11A of the Act and return the land to the petitioners."

The State Government issued notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquiring some land in village Gullstanpur, Tehsil and District Gautam Budh Nagar. The notification u/s 4(1) was published in the Gazette on 29.3.1997 and notification u/s 6(1) was published on 28.4.1997. It was mentioned in the notification that the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act were applicable and, consequently, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh had issued directions under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act would not apply. It is averred In para 6 of the writ petition that possession of the land acquired has been taken over by the respondents on 10.6.1997. In para 5, it is averred that notice u/s 9 of the Act was issued on 12.5.1997 directing the petitioners to submit their claim for compensation. Annexure-10 to the writ petition is a copy of the award, which has been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. This shows that the compensation has been paid to the tenure-holders on the basis of a compromise which had been entered into between the tenure-holders and the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the compensation amount has not been correctly determined and the petitioners are entitled to some higher amount of compensation. He has further submitted that Interest has not been awarded to the petitioners with effect from the date of their dispossession. In our opinion, the grievance made by the petitioners cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Land Acquisition Act is a complete Code which provides a remedy to a person interested to claim compensation. If the petitioners were dissatisfied with the award, they should have moved an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer u/s 18 of the Act asking for a reference being made to Court. The compensation awarded to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer cannot be enhanced In a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The other relief claimed is that it may by declared that proceedings for acquisition of land have lapsed u/s 11A of the Act and the possession of the land be given back to them. There is no dispute that provisions of Section 17 of the Act had been invoked and possession of the land was taken over by the respondents. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that where Section 17 of the Act has been invoked and possession of the acquired land has been taken over, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances and the provisions of Section 11A of the Act would not be attracted. See Satendra Prasad Jain and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, ; Awadh Bihari and Other Vs. State of Bihar and others, and Allahabad Development Authority Vs. Nasiruzzaman and Others, In this view of the matter, it is not possible to hold that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed.

The writ petition accordingly lacks merit and is dismissed summarily at the admission stage.