JUDGMENT A. N. Varma, J. 1. The parties having exchanged affidavits, the petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioner who claims to be the owner of plot no. 243 situate in village Bhograj, district Agra, has claimed the relief of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore possession of the said plot to the petitioner. The essential facts are that on 18-5-78 the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of a large number of plots including, inter alia, plot no. 243. The public purpose disclosed was the implementation of a housing scheme called 'Shamshabad Marg Grab Nirman Yojna'. Objections were invited under section 5-A of the aforesaid Act in pursuance of which the petitioner also filed an objection requesting that the land be exempted from acquisition proceedings. It is alleged that out of the total area of 1 Bigha 14 Biswas the authorities agreed to exempt 4 Biswas of the land retaining the rest of the area, namely, 1 bigha 10 biswas. After the disposal of the objections under section 5-A the Government issued a declaration under section 6 on 5-8-1980 and in pursuance of the same possession was also taken by the collector and delivered to the Agra Development Authority on 28-10-1980. It is also borne out by the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents that in enforcement of the Scheme a large number of houses were constructed by the Development Authority over the acquired land including plot no. 243 belonging to the petitioner. In course of time, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, made an award which was published on 19-3-1985 in respect of the plots acquired in pursuance of the aforesaid notifications. In regard to some of the plots including that of the petitioner, namely, 243, however, the Special Land Acquisition Officer deferred the determination of the compensation on the ground that the matter regarding the exemption of these plots from acquisition was pending before the State Government. Meanwhile, a new provision was inserted as Section 11-A in the Land Acquisition Act by the State Legislature by means of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (No. 68 of 1984) which came into force on 24-9-1984. Meanwhile, a new provision was inserted as Section 11-A in the Land Acquisition Act by the State Legislature by means of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (No. 68 of 1984) which came into force on 24-9-1984. Section 11-A provides that where a declaration is published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, ' 1984, if no award is made within the period of two years from the commencement of the Amending Act, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land shall lapse. Relying on this provision the petitioner made two applications to the Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as the President of the Agra Development Authority, dated, respectively, September and December, 1986 inviting their attention to section 11-A and requesting that the Agra Development Authority may either remove the Malwa of the building constructed by the Development Authority over the petitioner's land, or to pay compensation to her at the market value or at the rate charged by them for the plots sold by the Development Authority in the vicinity of the petitioner's land. Not having received any response from the Development Authority or the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioner filed this petition. 3. For the petitioner the sole point urged was that under section 11-A the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed inasmuch as no award was made in respect of the petitioner's land within two years of the commencement of the Amending Act. That being so, the Agra Development Authority was bound to restore possession of the petitioners' land acquired by them after removing the buildings standing thereon. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot be granted the aforesaid relief. As noticed above, the Special Land Acquisition Officer did make an award in respect of the land acquired by the Government except seme plots including that of the petitioner in March 1985, i. e. within two years of 24-9-84 the date of the commencement of the aforesaid Amending Act. The only omission was that the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not determine the compensation regarding the petitioner's plot on the ground that the question whether this plot along with some other plots should be exempted from acquisition was pending consideration before the State Government. The only omission was that the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not determine the compensation regarding the petitioner's plot on the ground that the question whether this plot along with some other plots should be exempted from acquisition was pending consideration before the State Government. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the Agra Development Authority on 25-11-88 the circumstances in which the matter came up for consideration before the State Government for exemption of various plots have been elaborated. It is said that the Minister for Housing had come to Agra. Various persons including the petitioner had met him in a delegation and urged him to exempt their land from acquisition on the ground that the houses built by them were standing over the land which had been acquired by the Government. The Minister thereupon issued a direction that the matter be referred to the State Government for consideration of the request made by those individuals. The State Government then took a decision in the matter directing that the houses which had been constructed prior to the issue of notification under section 4 might be exempted from acquisition but in regard to the houses constructed subsequent thereto the matter was left for the consideration of the Agra Development Authority. In pursuance of this decision a letter dated 13-6-88 was received by the Vice Chairman of the Agra Development Authority from the State Government whereby a list of 54 houses was enclosed which the Government agreed to exempt on the ground that those houses had been built prior to the issue of Section 4 notification. In the affidavits which have been filed by the petitioner in reply to this supplementary affidavit, however, it is asserted that the petitioner had not made any such request and, therefore, there was no valid justification for the failure of the Special Land Acquisition Officer to make an award in respect of the petitioner's land within two years of the relevant date, namely, 24-9-84. 5. Having carefully examined the affidavits filed by the parties on this factual controversy, we are inclined to accept the version of facts put forward by the Agra Development Authority. 5. Having carefully examined the affidavits filed by the parties on this factual controversy, we are inclined to accept the version of facts put forward by the Agra Development Authority. That the matter of exemption of a number of plots including that of the petitioner was engaging the attention of the State Government at the time the Special Land Acquisition Officer made his award regarding the rest of the land acquired by the Government was not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner himself had requested for exemption of the land from acquisition or the Development Authority or the Collector on their own requested the Government to exempt the same from acquisition. The normal course of human conduct persuades us to think that it is the persons whose land or houses are being taken away who would be interested in getting the land exempted from acquisition. Ordinarily, no one likes expropriation even if he might get compensation in lieu of acquisition. We would, therefore, prefer to rely on the version of the Agra Development Authority that it was the petitioner and others at whose instance the matter was referred to the Government for the exemption of their land. At any rate, there is nothing which might persuade us to accept the petitioners' version in preference to that of the Agra Development Authority. 6. We think where the land owner himself contributes to the delay in making the award, the acquisition proceeding ought not to be quashed in the exercise of the discretionary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The acquisition was undoubtedly for a laudable public purpose, namely, construction of a housing colony. The urgency of providing housing accommodation in urban areas can scarcely be over emphasized. In the present case in pursuance of the scheme conceived by the Agra Development Authority, houses/flats have already been constructed and thereafter sold or allotted to various individuals. It is not disputed that over the petitioners' land also in implementation of the housing scheme buildings have been constructed. This finds corroboration from the petitioners' applications referred to above in which she had specifically asked for the removal of the malwa existing over her land. It is not disputed that over the petitioners' land also in implementation of the housing scheme buildings have been constructed. This finds corroboration from the petitioners' applications referred to above in which she had specifically asked for the removal of the malwa existing over her land. Further the scheme is an integrated one and, therefore, it will be inappropriate to quash the acquisition proceedings on the ground that in respect of the petitioner plot the Special Land Acquisition Officer omitted to determine the amount of compensation. The omission was not a fraud on the statute but was clearly bona fide based on the consideration that there was a move afoot for the release of the land from acquisition. Moreover, the persons who would be hit by the quashing of the acquisition proceedings are not before us. To quash the proceedings in this state of things would not, in our considered view, be appropriate. It would defeat the larger public interest if we were to quash the proceedings on the technicality, assuming that the omission to make an award in respect of the petitioners' land within time produced the effect of vitiating the entire acquisition proceedings. In view of what has been stated above, this petition fails and is dismissed. We, however, direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra to determine the compensation payable in respect of the petitioner's land acquired under the aforesaid notification in accordance with law expeditiously, latest within two months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is filed before him. Thereafter the respondents shall arrange to pay to the petitioner the compensation so determined within the shortest possible time. Petition dismissed.