JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Puneet Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition has been pending in this Court for the past 31 years for disposal. 3. The dispute relates to acquisition of land claimed by the petitioners to be their holding, and the challenge raised to the acquisition proceedings in the writ petition was primarily on the ground that even though the Award is alleged to have been dated 23.9.1986, yet no such Award was in existence prior to 24.9.1984 which is the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. 4. The crux of the argument in the writ petition was based on the aforesaid allegation and the submission was that since the Award had not been made within two years of the date of the enforcement of the Amended Act, the same will be deemed to have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 5. A counter-affidavit dated 27.3.2004 was filed after the Court had imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the State vide order dated 26.2.2004. This happened almost 18 years after filing of the writ petition. The counter-affidavit denied all the allegations and ultimately indicated that the Award had been delivered upon a valid approval obtained from the Collector, and therefore the proceedings were not hit by the provisions of Section 11-A, inasmuch as the Award had been pronounced well within the time prescribed under the Amended Act of 1894. A rejoinder to the same was filed denying the said allegations whereafter a supplementary counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State for bringing on record the facts pertaining to the Reference that was pending in relation to the Award pronounced. Alongwith the said supplementary counter-affidavit, a photostat copy of the Award had been filed and against column - 10 which is the date of the Award a handwritten date ‘23.9.1986' was transcribed. This led to the filing of a supplementary rejoinder-affidavit and in this supplementary rejoinder-affidavit dated 19.1.2005 filed on behalf of the petitioners, it was stated that there were interpolations in the dates of the Award and the Award had not been delivered on 23.9.1986, inasmuch as the documents that were filed indicated the date of the Award either as ‘24.9.1986' or ‘27.9.1986'. On this basis, it appears that the argument advanced was that the Award which was dated ‘24.9.1986' or ‘27.9.1986' had been ante-dated as ‘23.9.1986'. A Division Bench of this Court after having perused the records on 4.10.2006 passed the following order : “On hearing the parties’ counsel, we are of the view that this petition requires consideration of the plea raised by the petitioner that the award in question was actually pronounced after the lapse of period of two years, but the same is ante dated and records have been manipulated so as to bring the aforesaid award under the period prescribed under Section 11-A of Land Acquisition Act. Original record was summoned by the Court, which has been produced before us today. Shri A.K. Bhatnagar, Standing Counsel initially on the basis of the information received from the pairokar, Abhay Kumar, stated before the Court that the award was duly approved by the District Magistrate on 22nd September, 1986, whereas in paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition a specific averment has been made that the approval by the District Magistrate was not obtained prior to 23rd September, 1986 and not before 24th September, 1986, whereas the date of the award has been shown as 23rd September, 1986. In reply to paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition, the counter-affidavit does not specifically deny in paragraph No. 13 about the said discrepancy but it only says that the award was published/pronounced after due approval of the District Magistrate. We have perused the original record which has been produced before us by the State and we find that the date of award has been inserted in the original award in hand writing but there is no initials or signature. There are also signatures of certain persons which according to learned Standing counsel are of the tenure-holders, out of which one signature bears the date 23rd September, 1986. There is no date mentioned under the signatures of other tenure-holders. There is an endorsement of the Special Land Acquisition Officer probably in his handwriting saying that the award has been declared today i.e. 23.9.1986. It is to be seen that the original award does not bear any date below the signature of Special Land Acquisition Officer, but in the carbon copy, which is also on record there is the date mentioned below his signature, which appears to be 26.9.1986. It is to be seen that the original award does not bear any date below the signature of Special Land Acquisition Officer, but in the carbon copy, which is also on record there is the date mentioned below his signature, which appears to be 26.9.1986. This figure (26), appears to have been played with, may be for making it 21st. But even if, it is to be taken as 21.9.1986, original award could not be said to have been published on 22.9.1986. This prima facie makes out a case that the date 23.9.1986 may not be the correct date and it is an insertion afterwards, which is to cover up the time period as provided under Section 11-A. Besides this, note, which has been put up before the District Magistrate for approval, shows that it is signed by Special Land Acquisition Officer and below his signature date 24.9.1986 has been mentioned. There is one other officer whose identity could not be disclosed by the learned counsel for the State, but under his signature also the same date i.e. 24.9.1986 has been clearly mentioned in green ink. However, after word “Sikrit”, there is some signature, which learned counsel for the State on the basis of instructions says, is the signature of the then District Magistrate, Shri Naresh Dayal. The aforesaid document/paper is torn out in the bottom, in a manner so that the date, which he has put under the signature removed, but for the date part which could be read only with the help of a magnifying glass, which date according to the respondent is 22.9.1986, whereas on seeing it with the help of magnifying glass it appears to be 27.9.1986. Abhay Kumar pairokar and Shri A.K. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the State, after looking into the said document, with the help of magnifying glass also express the same view that this date is 27.9.1986. In view of the discrepancies, which are evident from the record, apart from the fact that no justification is given from the State that if award was pronounced on 23.9.1986, then what was the occasion for the Special Land Acquisition Officer or any other officer who has signed in green ink to put 24.9.1986 as the date, while asking the approval from the District Magistrate as the award could have been finalized only after the approval of the District Magistrate. The recommendation to that effect does find mention in the aforesaid note prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and put before the District Magistrate, which says that if the sanction is granted, this award may be given in a final shape. Learned counsel for the state could not explain the reason of different dates being put in original award and in the carbon copy of the award. One more fact which requires consideration is that copy of the award, which has been filed by the petitioner is a certified copy, appears to have been duly issued on 23.10.1986 and which is, in fact photocopy of the original award, but it does not contain any signatures of the so called tenure-holders nor the date below their signatures. The date 23.9.1986 which has been shown in the original award does not find place in the certified copy, which has been delivered to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State has produced before us a skeleton file to show that an enquiry has been ordered by the District Magistrate. The office note dated 22.9.2006 itself admits discrepancies in the dates and the discrepancy in the certified copy of the award issued to the petitioner and the original award, but makes an observation that it may be the handy work of the petitioner in connivance of the officials of the department with the remark that certified copy should have been the same as the original award. We are, therefore, prima facie satisfied that it is a case of ante dating the award and that interpolation in the documents aforesaid appears to have been made. We under the circumstances direct that Principal Secretary, Medical Health, Government of U.P., District Magistrate, Lucknow and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow shall appear in person before this Court on 2.11.2006 at 3.30 P.M., if this Bench is otherwise not available on that date, to explain the aforesaid discrepancies and to show-cause why appropriate action be not taken, both civil and criminal as per law, against the guilty persons and why special damages be not awarded to the petitioner for compensating him adequately. Original record produced by the District Magistrate be kept in seal cover and be kept in the custody of the Registrar. The enquiry, which is likely to be initiated by the District Magistrate, shall remain stayed, till further orders of this Court.” 6. Original record produced by the District Magistrate be kept in seal cover and be kept in the custody of the Registrar. The enquiry, which is likely to be initiated by the District Magistrate, shall remain stayed, till further orders of this Court.” 6. This led to a further enquiry by the Court and the District Magistrate, Lucknow and the Land Acquisition Officer who had been summoned were also called upon to tender certain information that was given, whereafter the Division Bench passed another order on 8.11.2006 which is extracted hereunder : “Sri P.K. Dixit, Secretary, Medical Education, Sri Ramendra Tripathi, District Magistrate, Lucknow, Sri Amitabh Prakash, Special Land Acquisition Officer/ADM Land Acquisition are present in person. The original records have been produced before the Court. The District Magistrate, Lucknow and the Land Acquisition Officer after looking into the record do not dispute that the tempering has been done with the award and record. However, the District Magistrate informs the Court that an Enquiry has been set up in the matter for fixing responsibility for the interpolation made. Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General also says that perusal of the record shows that some tempering had been done which also stands reflected in the order dated 4.10.2006 passed by us and therefore, the District Magistrate may be allowed to complete the enquiry and report be furnished so that further action be taken accordingly. The question as to whether the enquiry should be conducted by the agency of the District Magistrate or by some independent agency like CBI, CBCID or any judicial officer of the rank of District Judge, as suggested by Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur and also the effect of the pleas raised in the writ petition, in the matter of acquisition of the plots in question, shall be considered on the next date of listing. The officers present need not appear in person on future dates unless called for by the Court. The record shall remain in seal cover with the registrar. Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur has filed application for exemption from appearance on behalf of the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare. The appearance is exempted for future dates, unless required by the Court. Learned Additional Advocate General has filed a supplementary-affidavit with a view to defend the plea of the State that the award was actually pronounced/published on 23.9.1986. Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur has filed application for exemption from appearance on behalf of the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare. The appearance is exempted for future dates, unless required by the Court. Learned Additional Advocate General has filed a supplementary-affidavit with a view to defend the plea of the State that the award was actually pronounced/published on 23.9.1986. In the supplementary-affidavit, photocopy of one notice has been annexed as Annexure 1, which is said to have been issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, informing public in general that the award in respect of the land acquired in Bhadewan shall be pronounced on 23.9.1986. This notice apparently, does not bare any date to show that on what date, the said notice was issued. Surprisingly, the persons (tenure-holders) who had put their signatures on receipt of notice with date had mentioned 23.9.1986, as the date of receipt of notice. It could not be made clear by the respondent-state that when the notice stated that the award would be pronounced on 23.9.19886, then how and for want reason, it was sent only on that very date. Presumably if the award has to be pronounced on 23.9.1986, the notice ought to have been issued some time before 23.9.1986. The theory of aforesaid notice for establishing that the award was published on 23.9.1986, prima facie does not stand substantiated. Apart from other, discrepancies, which would be considered at the time of hearing, one more fact, which is very glaring is that state has filed the photocopy of the award, which is said to have been filed by Ram Bilas Shukla in writ petition No. 386 of 187 (L/A) which mentions 23.9.1986 as the date of award but on a comparison the writing of the aforesaid date in the original award, the two did not tally. It is also not clear that if the date 23.9.1986 was originally incorporated in the original award and the endorsement of three or four tenure-holders, with one of them with the date below was made on that very date when the award was pronounced on 23.9.1986, then under what circumstances, the first certified copy, which was issued to the petitioner on 13.10.1986, which forms part of the record of the writ petition, did not reflect the date of award as 23.9.1986 and rather leaves the said column blank and that under what circumstances, the same did not bare the endorsement of the tenure-holders including that of Ram Vilas Shukla. Again in the photocopy issued to Ram Vilas Shukla on 24.10.1986 though the date 23.9.1986 has been mentioned in writing but that is not the photocopy of the date but an insertion of date in ink in some one’s original hand writing. This writing of the date does not tally with the original award, besides the fact that this copy which was issued on 24.10.1986 again does not have the endorsement of the tenure-holders including Ram Vilas Shukla, though he was said to be one of the signatory on the original award. The District Magistrate and the ADM (Land Acquisition) as well as the Secretary Medical Education have also stated before the Court that in fact the possession of these plots in question has not yet been taken by the State Government. On the question as to whether these plots are required for the scheme, the officers prayed for some time to enquire into the said fact. Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur shall also seek instruction in this regard. The effect of the aforesaid alleged manipulation or interpolation, which may make the scheme of the acquisition wiped of, in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the award was not pronounced within two years i.e. 23.9.1986, would be considered at the time of hearing. List this matter after two weeks on any date at 3.0 pm whenever the bench can be assembled.” 7. The State had already filed a supplementary-affidavit on 8.11.2006 prior to the passing of the aforesaid order indicating therein the circumstances and also another information pertaining to the certified copy of the Award that had been given to one Mr. Ram Bilash Shukla who has also filed the connected Writ Petition No. 386 (LA) of 1987. 8. The State had already filed a supplementary-affidavit on 8.11.2006 prior to the passing of the aforesaid order indicating therein the circumstances and also another information pertaining to the certified copy of the Award that had been given to one Mr. Ram Bilash Shukla who has also filed the connected Writ Petition No. 386 (LA) of 1987. 8. On a consideration of this material, the Court had passed the order indicated here-in-above whereby the then District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh was directed to hold an enquiry and submit his report in this regard. The said report has been placed before us which was in a sealed cover and the report in no uncertain terms clearly records that the date in the documents that were being relied upon for the purpose of indicating that the date of the Award had been tampered, had been actually tampered. The enquiry was conducted with the aid of forensic expertise as well and after recording the evidence of the officials and those who were available, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the Award that was dated ‘23.9.1986' had been prepared and the records indicated approval, but the date had been tampered with and overwriting had been done as alleged depicting the dates as ‘24.9.1986' and ‘27.9.1986' respectively. The finding thus clearly is of the post-dating of the date of the Award and not it’s ante-dating. The report which runs in several pages also takes into account the observations made by the Division Bench while referring the matter for enquiry as well as all the documents that had been filed by the parties before this Court. The finding thus clearly is of the post-dating of the date of the Award and not it’s ante-dating. The report which runs in several pages also takes into account the observations made by the Division Bench while referring the matter for enquiry as well as all the documents that had been filed by the parties before this Court. The report of the Deputy Director Document, Forensic Science Laboratory, U.P. Lucknow that has been extensively relied upon in the Enquiry Report is extracted hereunder : ^^ijh{k.k ifj.kke mijksDr of.kZr izys[kksa dh ijh{kk bl iz;ksx'kkyk esa fofHkUu oSKkfud midj.kksa@izdk'k lzksrks ds ek/;e ls dh x;h] ifj.kke fuEu gS%& ¼1½ gjh L;kgh ls fy[ks gLrk{kj esa fy[ks fookfnr orZeku fnukad fpfUgr D;w & 1 esas] fnukad ^^24@9@86^^ esa fnu ds ewy vad ys[k ^^21^^ dks addition of stroke }kjk orZeku vad ys[k ^^24^^ esa ifjofrZr fd;k x;k gS A ¼2½ dkyh L;kgh ls fy[ks gLrk{kj esa fookfnr fnukad fpfUgr D;w & 2 esa fnukad ds vad ys[k esa dksbZ ifjorZu n`f"Vxkspj ugha gqvk A ¼3½ gjh L;kgh ls fy[ks gLrk{kj ds ck;ha rjQ 'kCn Lohd`r ds uhps cus gLrk{kj esa fookfnr fnukad fpfUgr D;w & 3 esa fnukad ^^21^^ ds nkfguh rjQ ds iUus dk Hkkx orZeku esa fo|eku ugha gS A fnu ds vad ys[k ^^21^^ ds vad ys[k esa dksbZ ifjorZu n`f"Vxkspkj ugha gqvk A ¼4½ iziksLM vokMZ ds ist ua & 10 ¼ist ua & 190 vkQ Qkby½ ij fy[ks gLrk{kj ds nkfguh rjQ uhps fookfnr fnukad fpfUgr D;w & 4 ds vad ys[k esa fnu ds bdkbZ ds ewy vad ^^1^^ dks Overwrite fd;k x;k gS A mi funs'kd ¼izys[k½ 28&6&12 Deputy Directorate Document Forensic Science Laboratory U.P. Lucknow layXud & 1& fookfnr izys[k&Qkby & ,d vnn 2& QksVks izfr & 2 vnn 1& mDr ijh{k.k izfrosnu iw.kZZ:is.k izLrqr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A 2& mDr ijh{k.k izfrosnu iz;ksx'kkyk esa ijhf{kr izn'kZ ij vk/kkfjr gS A 3& ijh{k.k gsrq ekud fof/k;ksa dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k A^^ 9. It is in this background that the matter has now come up for hearing before this Court where the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that once it is established that there has been a tampering of dates then the Award cannot be presumed to be delivered prior to 24.9.1986. 10. It is in this background that the matter has now come up for hearing before this Court where the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that once it is established that there has been a tampering of dates then the Award cannot be presumed to be delivered prior to 24.9.1986. 10. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the said tampering is established, then too even the tampering is by way of an overwriting on the earlier existing date and by such overwriting, the dates have been advanced beyond 23.9.1986 and no ante-dating can be presumed. This has been deliberately done so as to bring about an impact to extend the benefit of Section 11-A to the petitioners and the tenure-holders, and therefore the State is not to gain by any such tampering. It has also been stated that out of the two officials, who were found to be in custody of the records, one has died and the State will take appropriate action in accordance with law in case it is required under the relevant Rules against the erring official. 11. We have considered the submissions raised and the facts that have been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the parties and indicated here-in-above. 12. The acquisition was by way of a notification under Section 4 dated 21.2.1967 followed by a notification under Section 6 dated 25.10.1969. The date of Award being disputed is stated to be ‘23.9.1986'. It is on account of the 1984 Amendment Act that this dispute has gained proportions, inasmuch as if the Award is construed to have been rendered prior to 24.9.1986 then in that event, the benefit of Section 11-A cannot be pleaded on behalf of the petitioners. What we find from the enquiury report and the entire history relating to tampering is that the dates have not been ante-dated but have been post-dated as is evident from the narration here-in-above. In such circumstances, the presumption of any advantage to the State does not arise rather to the contrary, the presumption is that such tampering if has taken place, would obviously be to the advantage of the claim of the petitioners, namely, that the Award had been given after 23.9.1986. 13. In such circumstances, the presumption of any advantage to the State does not arise rather to the contrary, the presumption is that such tampering if has taken place, would obviously be to the advantage of the claim of the petitioners, namely, that the Award had been given after 23.9.1986. 13. We at this stage on the basis of the material cannot conclusively say that the petitioners were responsible for any such tampering but the fact remains that the tampering which has occurred has been found to be during the official custody of the files by a couple of officials who have already been named in the enquiry report. In such circumstances and in the absence of any material to the contrary at this stage, there is nothing to indicate that the Award had been ante-dated. The case of the petitioners as setup in the writ petition therefore cannot succeed as the petitioners have failed to prove that the Award had been ante-dated. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed. The dismissal of this writ petition shall not prejudice the rights of any person entitled to receive compensation under the Award. The Enquiry Report which has been opened in the Court and was kept in a sealed cover by the Registry shall now be placed on the record of the writ petition.