Landowners have no locus to challenge acquisition of land taken through an agreed exchange.

The petitioners claimed ownership of Gata Nos. 144 Kha and 234, each measuring approximately 10 biswas, situated in Village Keshopur Sarpatah, District Sant Ravi Das Nagar (Bhadohi).

The State issued a notification dated 20 January 2003 under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, invoking the urgency clause for construction of the District Collectorate and residential buildings; Gata No. 144 Kha was mentioned in the notification. A declaration under Section 6 was issued on 17 January 2004.

The petitioners challenged the acquisition on the grounds that the urgency clause was arbitrarily invoked, their right to object under Section 5-A was wrongly dispensed with, and the award dated 27 March 2006 was made beyond two years from the publication of the Section 6 declaration, allegedly causing the acquisition to lapse under Section 11-A of the 1894 Act.

The State contended that the petitioners’ land had not been acquired in the ordinary course but had been exchanged, with their consent, for land in Gata No. 106 Minjumla pursuant to an order dated 5 February 2002 under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

The award recorded that compensation was not payable for the land given in exchange.

The petitioners denied the exchange and alleged that the order was passed behind their back and that the exchange was merely a paper transaction.

Whether the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when the State’s case was that their land had not been acquired but had been taken in exchange?

Whether the invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17(4), dispensing with an inquiry under Section 5-A, was arbitrary or unsupported by material?

Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, because the award was made more than two years after publication of the Section 6 declaration?

Whether the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on account of alleged non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession?

The Court considered Sections 4, 5-A, 6, 11-A and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which govern acquisition notifications, objections, declaration of intended acquisition, the statutory period for making an award, and dispensation of the Section 5-A inquiry in cases of urgency.

It also considered Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act concerning the alleged lapse of earlier acquisition proceedings where the statutory conditions regarding possession and compensation are satisfied.

The Court referred to Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, under which the alleged exchange was sanctioned.

The Court further relied on the earlier decision in Chhaviraj and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, Writ-C No. 46556 of 2011, which upheld the same acquisition proceedings on the ground of delay and laches.

The Court examined the award dated 27 March 2006 and found that no compensation had been determined for Gata No. 144 Kha because the land was recorded as having been given in exchange.

The respondents had consistently pleaded that the petitioners’ land was not acquired under the 1894 Act and that entries had been made in the revenue records pursuant to the exchange order dated 5 February 2002.

Although the petitioners disputed the exchange, they had not challenged the exchange order itself.

On that evidentiary and procedural basis, the Court held that the petitioners were not persons aggrieved by the acquisition notifications and therefore lacked locus standi to challenge them.

Having reached that conclusion, the Court expressly declined to adjudicate the arguments concerning urgency, Section 5-A, Section 11-A and Section 24(2).

The Court also noted that the same acquisition had previously been upheld in Chhaviraj, where a challenge brought after substantial delay was dismissed on the ground of laches.

Consequently, the petitioners were not aggrieved persons and had no locus standi to challenge the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Court therefore found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it without awarding costs.