Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1102 (ALL)

Union Of India v. Keshan

2021-09-22

RAJAN ROY, RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. These are two writ petitions, one bearing Writ Petition no.202 (L/ A) of 2014 by the Union of India whereas the other bearing Writ Petition No.24178 (L/A) of 2020 is by the private opposite parties of the earlier writ petition. 2. The Union of India has challenged an order dated 19.05.2014 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Joint Organization, Lucknow. In the connected petition, the private persons have sought compensation for the land which is in possession of the Central Reserve Police Force (petitioner no.2 of W.P. No.202 (L/A of 2014), on the basis of the order dated 19.05.2014, that is, the very order which is impugned by the Union of India. 3. The dispute herein relates to Khasra No.1170 (area 1-3-0), Khasra No.1141 Sa (1-10-0), Khasra No.1141 Sa (area 0-5-0) and Khasra No.1200 (area 1-0-0). All the lands are situated in Village and Pargana-Bijnor, Tehsil & District-Lucknow. 4. For convenience, Writ Petition No. 202 (L/A) of 2014 has been treated as the leading writ petition. 5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that a proposal for acquisition of about 159 acres of land was sent by petitioner No.2 to the State Government for the purposes of establishing and construction of group center of Central Reserve Police Force. This proposal was subsequently modified for acquisition of 135.21 acres of land recorded in the name of tenure holders and 30.90 acres of land of the Gaon Sabha. This proposal was sent in the year 1993. 6. Before any notification was issued for acquisition of the said lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1894), the private opposite parties in this writ petition who are the petitioners in the connected petition initiated proceedings for settlement of the land in question in their favour in terms of Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1950’). Consequently, these lands came to be settled with them vide orders passed on 29.6.1994, as also, orders passed on 24.8.1994 by the Assistant Collector (First Class), copies of which are on record in Writ Petition No.24178 (L/A) of 2020. Consequently, these lands came to be settled with them vide orders passed on 29.6.1994, as also, orders passed on 24.8.1994 by the Assistant Collector (First Class), copies of which are on record in Writ Petition No.24178 (L/A) of 2020. By the said orders, a finding was recorded that the applicants, who belong to Scheduled Caste, were in possession of the land in question since prior to 30.06.1985 and had acquired the rights of Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights under section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3, namely, Keshan, Hari Mohan and Ashok Kumar are sons of Smt. Munni Devi who was the wife of Shyam Bihari. The orders under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 in respect to them are dated 29.06.1994. As regards opposite party nos.4 and 5, namely, Barsati and Ramu, opposite party no.6 is Smt. Sona Devi, wife of late Baba Deen and opposite party nos.4 and 5 are their sons and the orders under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 in respect to Baba Deen, their predecessor in interest, is also dated 29.06.1994. As regards opposite party nos.7, 8 and 9, namely, Smt. Ram Rati, Ram Gopal and Shree Kishan, opposite party no.7 is the widow of Rajjan Lal whereas opposite party nos.8 and 9 are sons of Rajjan Lal and the orders under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 relating to them are not on record but the Khatauni pertaining to Fasli No.1422-1427 containing their names is on record. As regards opposite party no.10, namely, Ram Chandra, the orders under Section 122-B (4F) of the Act, 1950 pertaining to him is also dated 29.06.1994. As regards opposite party no.11, the order under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 pertaining to him is dated 24.08.1994. All these orders are on record of the connected petition bearing No.24178 (L/A) of 2020). There is nothing on record to show that these orders were ever challenged by anyone including the Gaon Sabha and the State Government. 7. Subsequent to passing of these orders, on 08.02.1995, a Notification was issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act 1894 for acquisition of 120.558 acres of land of Village and Pargana-Bijnor, Tehsil-Sarojini Nagar, District-Lucknow for the purpose already referred earlier. 7. Subsequent to passing of these orders, on 08.02.1995, a Notification was issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act 1894 for acquisition of 120.558 acres of land of Village and Pargana-Bijnor, Tehsil-Sarojini Nagar, District-Lucknow for the purpose already referred earlier. On 09.05.1995, a Notification was issued in respect of these lands under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1894. 8. As regards the alleged Gaon Sabha land referred earlier, 26.63 acres of such land was resumed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 117 of the Act, 1950 vide order dated 18th March 1995. The land in question was not part of this resumption. The record reveals that 14.656 acres of Gaon Sabha land which was also proposed to be resumed became disputed in various proceedings before the concerned courts and this dispute was settled subsequently, according to which, 11.78 acres of such land was ordered to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha regarding which resumption proceedings were undertaken and this was subsequently resumed under Section 117 of the Act, 1950, but, remaining 2.876 acres of land was ordered to be settled in favour of the private parties herein. It is this land which is the subject matter of dispute in these proceedings before this Court. 9. As this land had already been settled in favour of private persons who are parties herein as already mentioned, therefore, it could not be resumed under Section 117 of the Act, 1950 as, only such lands which were vested in the Gaon Sabha by the State and were not under the State’s control, could be resumed by the State. The tenures already having been settled with private persons i.e. the parties herein, there was no question of resumption by the State. 10. At this stage, it is not out of place to mention that in pursuance to the acquisition notifications issued in 1995, although the land in question was not acquired for the reason stated earlier, its possession had been handed over to the Central Reserve Police Force on 23.07.1997 and 30.07.1997, a fact which is admitted to the petitioners and is also borne out from the possession memo dated 23/24.07.1997, copies of which have been annexed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.202 (L/A) of 2014 themselves. The said possession memo includes the land in question. 11. The said possession memo includes the land in question. 11. The award in respect of the land acquired in pursuance to the notifications issued in 1995 was declared on 25.02.1997 and as already stated, the lands in question were not part of the award because they had not been acquired. 12. Once, it came to knowledge of the petitioners that the land measuring 2.876 acres had already been settled with the private persons as tenure holders who had been in possession of the same, under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act, 1950, then, a fresh proposal for acquisition of these lands i.e. the land in question, was sent and accordingly a Notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 29.12.2006. However, as per the stand of the State Government in its counter affidavit, as the Central Reserve Police Force who is one of the petitioners did not deposit the requisite amount of compensation to be paid, therefore, no notification could be issued for acquisition of these lands under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act, 1894. Consequently, the acquisition became barred by limitation. 13. Now, the fact of the matter is that inspite of the fact that the land in question was never acquired by the petitioners and there was no question of resumption of these lands for the reasons already referred hereinabove, the possession of this very land in question which had been taken by the petitioner no.2 in the year 1997 continued to remain with C.R.P.F. and even today is in its possession. 14. It is not out of place to mention that the petitioners deposited an amount of Rs.2,87,4080/-with respect to the acquisition proceedings initiated in 1995 for their benefit, on 19.06.1997, but this did not include the land in question, as already stated. 15. The private opposite parties who are petitioners in the connected petition kept claiming their land and, in the alternative, compensation in respect thereof, but their prayers fell on deaf ears. Ultimately, they filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No.143 (L/A) of 2013 (Kesan & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) which was disposed of on 06.12.2013 in the following terms. Ultimately, they filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No.143 (L/A) of 2013 (Kesan & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) which was disposed of on 06.12.2013 in the following terms. “The petitioners seek a mandamus to the respondents for the payment of compensation, claiming that their agricultural lands, bearing Khasra Plot Nos.1170 ad-measuring 0.2910 hectare, 1141 ad-measuring 0.3790 hectare, 1181 ad-measuring 0.1770 hectare and 1200 ad-measuring 0.2530 hectare situated at Village Bijnore, District Lucknow were acquired for the purposes of Central Reserve Police Force Group Centre, in spite of which, no compensation has been paid to them. The petitioners have annexed a copy of a notification dated 29 December 2006 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to the petitioners, though possession has been taken, no notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been issued. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent, namely, CRPF states that it would appear that Section 4 notification was issued on 08 February 1995, Section 6 declaration on 09 May 1995, possession was taken on 24 July 1997 and an award was passed on 25 February 1997. Moreover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent states that an entry in the revenue records pertaining to the petitioners appears to have been made on 19 May 1995, which is after a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. In our view, having regard to this dispute on facts, it would be appropriate, at this stage, to direct the Collector, Lucknow to enquire into the grievance of the petitioners and after causing a due enquiry to be made, to take a considered decision in regard to the entitlement of the petitioners to the payment of compensation. We leave it open to the Collector, Lucknow-respondent no.2 to obtain a report on the exact factual position, if necessary from his subordinate officers. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and a communication shall be issued to the petitioners dealing with the grievance one way or the other. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the grievance of the petitioners and all the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the grievance of the petitioners and all the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. All the affected parties including the petitioners and the fifth respondents should be given due opportunity of participating in the enquiry. The petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 16. In pursuance to this judgment, the impugned order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) on 19.05.2014. The impugned order apart from other facts also mentions about an inquiry which was got conducted at the tehsil level in respect of the dispute. It has been passed after hearing all the concerned parties including the petitioners and opposite parties herein. As per report of the Tehsil dated 06.02.2014, the land in question was found to be within the boundary walls of the C.R.P.F. camp. After examining the records, the Addl. District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) recorded a finding about the facts which have been noticed hereinabove. He has specifically referred to a letter of Central Reserve Police Force of June, 1996 (a copy of which is on record of the connected Writ Petition bearing No.24178 (L/A) of 2020 having been annexed as Annexure no.7 thereof, a reference to which has been made in para no.11 of the said writ petition, veracity of which has not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the Central Reserve Police Force) wherein, the petitioners (C.R.P.F. etc) had themselves admitted that the land in question measuring 2.876 acres had been settled with the cultivators of the said land and this land remained to be acquired. This finding has been recorded by the A.D.M. (Land Acquisition) to repel the assertion of the petitioners that the land had already been resumed, therefore, there was no necessity of its acquisition. The impugned order further categorically states that there was no order resuming these lands i.e. the land in dispute. This finding has been recorded by the A.D.M. (Land Acquisition) to repel the assertion of the petitioners that the land had already been resumed, therefore, there was no necessity of its acquisition. The impugned order further categorically states that there was no order resuming these lands i.e. the land in dispute. In fact, the impugned order says that accepting the fact that the said land had been settled in favour of the farmers, a proposal for its acquisition was initiated by the Central Reserve Police Force, consequent to which, a Notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 29.12.2006 and thereafter a proposal for the notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act, 1894 was also sent by the Central Reserve Police Force but, as it did not deposit the requisite amount, the proceedings became time barred on 06.11.2008 as a period of more than a year lapsed since the issuance of Notification under Section 4 and the Notification under Section 6 was not issued. Accordingly, the A.D.M. (Land Acquisition) has recorded a finding in the impugned order that the land in question, the details of which have already been mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, belongs to the private opposite parties of Writ Petition no.202 (L/A) of 2014 who are petitioners of connected writ petition and the said land is in possession of Central Reserve Police Force, in respect to which the latter is bound to give compensation to the land owners. The Addl. District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) has given two options in this regard to Central Reserve Police Force, firstly, to purchase the land from the rightful owners and secondly, to provide them compensation in terms of ‘the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Act, 2013’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2013’). It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioners i.e. the Union of India and the Central Reserve Police Force, and it is this order which is the basis for the claim for compensation in the connected petition filed by the private parties i.e. the land owners. 17. Having narrated the facts related to the case we may now take note of the contentions of the rival parties. 18. 17. Having narrated the facts related to the case we may now take note of the contentions of the rival parties. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.202 (L/A) of 2014 contended, firstly, that the land in question had been resumed by the State under Section 117 of the Act, 1950 as was evident from the document annexed as Annexure no.13 which is dated 26.08.2000 and has been issued by the State Government to the District Magistrate, Lucknow referring to acquisition of 2.876 acres of land as having been resumed as per Rules which was part of the total land measuring 38.44 acres which was for resumption, as such, it was contended that there was no question of payment of compensation or any consideration to the opposite parties. The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioners was that the impugned order had been passed by the Addl. District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), whereas, this Court while deciding the writ petition of the private opposite parties vide judgment dated 06.12.2013 had ordered the Collector to take a decision in the matter, therefore, the impugned order was without jurisdiction. Thirdly, it was submitted that entries in favour of the private opposite parties of 1994 were collusive and illegal. The requisite orders and entries based thereon in their favour were made/ passed after a proposal for acquisition of the land in question had been sent in 1993 i.e. they were made in 1994. The entries were made in their favour after the survey and demarcation which precedes the acquisition and after deposit of 10 % of the amount of compensation in respect of the proposed acquisition on 24.02.1994. The entire exercise of allotment to these private persons is illegal and collusive. Fourthly, it was submitted that the petitioners had already deposited the compensation amount of Rs.2,87,408/-on 19.06.1997 and this amount had been returned to the petitioners on 03.12.2012 i.e. after 15 years and 5 months. Therefore, if at all, there was any liability to pay compensation, the petitioners cannot be made liable as the money all along remained with the State Government. Fifthly, it was submitted that prior to passing of the impugned order, no, on the spot inspection was carried out to ascertain as to whether the land in question was within the campus of C.R.P.F. as was required by the order of this Court dated 06.12.2013 referred earlier. Fifthly, it was submitted that prior to passing of the impugned order, no, on the spot inspection was carried out to ascertain as to whether the land in question was within the campus of C.R.P.F. as was required by the order of this Court dated 06.12.2013 referred earlier. 20. Sri Sharad Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India and the Central Reserve Police Force in the connected petition reiterated the submissions of Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.202 (L/A) of 2014. 21. No other argument was pressed before us on behalf of the petitioners of the leading writ petition. 22. Learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that in the first acquisition proceedings, the land in question was not acquired and the said land was never resumed as it had already been settled with the cultivators who were in possession of the land under Section 122-B (4F) of the Act, 1950. As the tenures in respect to the said land had already been settled and the land was no longer of the Gaon Sabha, therefore, there was no question of resumption of the same by the State. 23. The acquisition proceedings in respect of this land was initiated subsequently in the year 2006 and a Notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act, 1894 was also issued but as the Central Reserve Police Force did not deposit the requisite amount of compensation, which was payable, the Notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 could not be issued within the period of one year from the date of issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894, therefore, the proceedings became time barred and the land was never acquired. He stated that possession of the land in question had been given to the Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1997 itself and all along it had remained in its possession. As regards deposit of the amount of Rs. 2,87,408/-, it was submitted by learned Standing Counsel for the State that this was in respect of the acquisition proceedings initiated in 1995 which did not include the land in question. He submitted that the Central Reserve Police Force was obliged to pay compensation to the tenure holders and/ or consideration of the land in question. 24. 2,87,408/-, it was submitted by learned Standing Counsel for the State that this was in respect of the acquisition proceedings initiated in 1995 which did not include the land in question. He submitted that the Central Reserve Police Force was obliged to pay compensation to the tenure holders and/ or consideration of the land in question. 24. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 25. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned decision had been taken by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) and not by the Collector contrary to what had been ordered by this Court by its judgment dated 06.12.2013 in Writ Petition No.143 (L/A) of 2013 filed by the private opposite parties, no doubt such a direction had been issued but what the petitioners’ counsel failed to take note of was that the term ‘Collector’ has been defined in Section 3(c) of the Act, 1894 to mean the Collector of a district, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer especially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act. The words Deputy Commissioner appearing in the Central Act have been omitted in its application to the State of U.P. vide U.P. Amending and Repealing Act No.XXX of 1956. The term ‘Collector’ was used by this Court in its judgment dated 06.12.2013 as it was given the impression as if the matter is covered under the Act, 1894 as would be evident from the recitals contained in the said judgment. The term ‘Collector’ used in the Act, 1894 not only means Collector of a District but also includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer especially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under the said Act. The appropriate Government in this context is the State Government as the notifications for acquisition were issued on behalf of the State Government and the land belonged to the State Government. The State Government had authorized the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) to perform the functions of the Collector under the Act, 1894 vide Notification No.2240/1-A-254-63 dated 14.08.1963. Similar Notification No.493/ ,d -13-2014@ d (52) has been issued on 06.08.2014 in the context of ‘Collector’ under the Act, 2013. The State Government had authorized the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) to perform the functions of the Collector under the Act, 1894 vide Notification No.2240/1-A-254-63 dated 14.08.1963. Similar Notification No.493/ ,d -13-2014@ d (52) has been issued on 06.08.2014 in the context of ‘Collector’ under the Act, 2013. Therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioners that the impugned decision is without jurisdiction is without any merit and is rejected, especially as, the petitioners participated in the hearing before the Addl. District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) as is mentioned in the impugned order. 27. As regards the contention of the petitioners that on the spot inspection was not conducted by the A.D.M. (Acquisition) to ascertain as to whether the land in question was within the boundary walls of the C.R.P.F. campus or not, apart from the fact that the impugned order mentions about an inquiry having been got conducted at the tehsil level and the report dated 06.02.2014 according to which the land in question was within the boundary walls of the C.R.P.F. campus and the name of the petitioners did not find mention in the list of names whose lands in respect to Gata no.1141 Sa were found outside the boundary wall, when we confronted learned counsel for the petitioners with a document annexed by them as Annexure no.10 to the writ petition, which is the possession memo dated 24.07.1997 and which mentions the Gata numbers which are involved in these proceedings as already referred, he could not deny the fact that the possession of the land in question had been taken by the petitioners long back in the year 1997 itself. Considering the aforesaid and also the finding recorded in the impugned order which has not been rebutted and also considering the language of the judgment dated 06.12.2013 wherein we do not find any such stipulation that the A.D.M. or the Collector, Lucknow should conduct an on the spot inspection though it refers to an inquiry into the grievance of the petitioners of the said writ petition and which, in fact, we find to have been suitably conducted as is reflected from the impugned order itself, this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners also does not find favour and is accordingly rejected. 28. 28. The other contention of counsel for the petitioners that the land in question had already been resumed by the State Government under Section 117 of the Act, 1950 as noticed hereinabove is not only without any merit but is also contrary to the conduct of the petitioners themselves, as, if it was so, then, why a proposal was sent for acquisition of this very land, consequent to which, a Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 on 29.12.2006, a copy of which has been annexed by the petitioners themselves as Annexure no.8 to the writ petition. This assertion is also belied from their own document which, though, does not bear a date, refers to the month June, 1996 and a copy of which has been annexed, as already stated, as Annexure no.7 to the connected writ petition by the tenure holders, veracity of which has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed in response in the said connected matter. This apart, there is no resumption order on record which could establish that the land in question measuring 2.876 acres was ever resumed by the State. This is also the recital in the impugned order and the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that it is otherwise. Reference made by them, in this regard, to a letter of the State Government dated 26.08.2000 is also of no avail for the reasons, firstly, there are orders of the competent court/ authority passed under Section 122B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 settling the tenures in respect to the land in question in favour of the petitioners and there is nothing on record to show that these orders were ever challenged by anyone including the Gaon Sabha. These orders are of 1994 and till then no notification had been issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 for acquisition of such land or for that matter, acquisition of other land also. These orders categorically mention that the petitioners belong to Schedule Caste and were in possession thereof since prior to 30.06.1995. In this context, it is relevant to mention that the cut-off date for application of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 as was existing at that time was 30.06.1985 which has subsequently been amended from time to time. In 1994, the date was 30.06.1985. In this context, it is relevant to mention that the cut-off date for application of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 as was existing at that time was 30.06.1985 which has subsequently been amended from time to time. In 1994, the date was 30.06.1985. Therefore, by the said orders, the private parties herein became Bhumidhars with non-transferable rights and this is not with effect from the date of passing of the orders in 1994 but it relates back to the date 30.06.1985 or prior to it as that is when the rights vested in them under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act, 1950. There is no order of resumption of the land in question under Section 117 of the Act, 1950. The State in its counter affidavit does not support the petitioner on this issue, therefore, for all these reasons, the letter dated 26.08.2000 is of no avail and the contention of the petitioners that land had already been resumed by the State under Section 117 of the Act, 1950 is absolutely untenable on facts and in law. 29. The contention of the petitioners that the entries in respect of the private parties were made in the revenue records only after the proposal for acquisition was sent in 1993 is without any legal basis. They were already in possession since 30.06.1985 and a right had vested in them under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 as discussed hereinabove. The order passed in 1994 were only in recognition of the already existing rights which had vested in them. The entries made subsequently were also a consequence of these orders. The said orders not having been challenged by the Goan Sabha or by any other person, have attained finality. The contention that the orders were collusive is not borne out from the facts and material on record, therefore, this contention is also rejected. 30. The entries made subsequently were also a consequence of these orders. The said orders not having been challenged by the Goan Sabha or by any other person, have attained finality. The contention that the orders were collusive is not borne out from the facts and material on record, therefore, this contention is also rejected. 30. Though even a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights is entitled to compensation in respect to his land which may have been acquired, in view of the Government Order dated 05.06.1981 which has been considered by Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal no.356 of 1999 decided on 18.09.2012, but, apart from it, it needs to be taken note of that on 14.01.1995 Section 131-B was inserted in the Act, 1950 by U.P. Act No.19 of 1995 and by this provision every person who was a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights immediately before the commencement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1995 and had been such Bhumidhar for a period of ten years or more, shall become a Bhumidhar with transferable rights on such commencement. In this case, the petitioners became Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights on or prior to 30.06.1985, though, this was acknowledged subsequently by the order of the competent court/ authority passed in 1994. This is evident from the findings recorded in the said orders itself. Sub-section (2) of Section 131(B)(1) goes on to state that every person who is a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights on the commencement referred to in sub-Section (1) or becomes a Bhumidhar with non-transferrable rights after such commencement, shall become Bhumidhar with transferable rights on the expiry of period of ten years from his becoming a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. Based on this, the private parties herein became Bhuimdhars with transferable rights on 30.06.1995 by operation of law as their land had not been acquired by then and in fact, has never been acquired till date, as already discussed. Even if, the date of passing of order under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 in 1994 is taken as the date from which they became Bhumidhars with non-transferable rights, even then, these rights, in any case, were acquired by them on 30.06.2005 as even by then their lands had neither been purchased by the petitioners nor acquired nor the State had resumed the same. The fact that the petitioners gained possession of the land in 1997 does not have any adverse effect on the tenure of these persons, as it was clearly illegal. 31. Now, as regards the contention of the petitioners that they had already deposited the amount of compensation to be paid, we find that the amount had been deposited by the C.R.P.F. in the year 1997 in respect to the acquisition proposed at that time but the land of the private persons herein did not form part of the acquisition exercise initiated prior to 2006 i.e. 1995, therefore, this deposit is irrelevant in the case at hand. As regards the subsequent notification for acquisition dated 29.12.2006 under Section 4 of the Act, 1894, the said Notification lapsed on account of non-deposit of the amount of compensation payable by the petitioners as stated by the State Government, which the petitioners have not been able to rebut. Whether the amount earlier deposited was liable to be adjusted against the second acquisition or not is a question which we need not go into as it is something between the petitioners and the State Government. The fact of the matter is that the land in question was never acquired nor any compensation was paid to the private parties herein by the petitioners. The land not having been acquired, the possession of C.R.P.F. of the said land since July, 1997 is apparently and evidently illegal. The private opposite parties in Writ Petition No.202 (L/A) of 2014 who are the petitioners in the connected matter have been deprived of possession of their land since July, 1997 illegally and in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and they have been deprived of user of such land in a blatantly illegal manner without any authority of law, for which, they are liable to be compensated and there is no escape for the petitioners from this conclusion. The petitioners were very well aware that the land having been settled with the tenure holders could not be resumed as is evident from the letter of the month, June, 1994 contained in Annexure no.7 to Writ Petition No.24178 (L/A) of 2020. The petitioners were very well aware that the land having been settled with the tenure holders could not be resumed as is evident from the letter of the month, June, 1994 contained in Annexure no.7 to Writ Petition No.24178 (L/A) of 2020. They should have either handed back the possession of such land to the private persons/ tenure holders or the State, as the case may have been, or they should have promptly initiated proceedings for acquisition, but this was never done. 32. Having held as above, now, the only question to be considered is as to whether the land in question is to be given back to the private opposite parties or adequate compensation can be provided to them, if so how. 33. When we peruse the relief clause of the connected writ petition bearing No.24178 (L/A) of 2020 filed by the tenure holders, we find that they have not prayed for being given back the land, instead, they have prayed for grant of compensation for their land along with all consequential benefits including interest etc w.e.f. the date when possession of their land was taken in the year 1997. The tenure holders have not challenged the order dated 19.05.2014. In fact, they have made it the basis of their claim. By the impugned order, the petitioners i.e. the Union of India and C.R.P.F. have been ordered either to purchase the land in question from the tenure holders or to acquire the same under the provisions of the Act, 2013. The impugned order does not provide any time limit in this regard. 34. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioners of Writ Petition No.202 (L/A) of 2014 should acquire the land in question in terms of the Act, 2013 and pay due compensation to the private opposite parties therein as per the said Act. The State authorities are also directed to co-operate in this regard and take all necessary steps as and when a proposal for acquisition is received. This exercise shall be completed within six months from the date of delivery of this judgment. It is open to the said petitioners to purchase the said land based on negotiations with the tenure holders on payment of such consideration as is agreed upon by them freely and without any undue influence or coercion within the same period. This exercise shall be completed within six months from the date of delivery of this judgment. It is open to the said petitioners to purchase the said land based on negotiations with the tenure holders on payment of such consideration as is agreed upon by them freely and without any undue influence or coercion within the same period. As regards illegal user of the land by the said petitioners since 1997 till the date of actual payment of such compensation or consideration, as the case may be, we are of the opinion that as we have ordered for payment of compensation in terms of the Act, 2013 after acquisition of the land in question, therefore, we leave it open for the tenure holders to claim damages/ compensation for such illegal and unauthorized occupation by moving appropriate proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction as there is no question of ordering payment of interest for the said period as the land was never acquired in pursuance to the Notifications issued in 1995 and thereafter in 2006 nor any compensation was determined thereunder. 35. In view of the above discussion, Writ Petition No.202(L/A) of 2014 is dismissed and Writ Petition No.24178 (L/A) of 2020 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.