“The purported proviso of Section 6(1) of the Act 1894 is clearly well settled. The fact that more than one year period has lapsed between the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Notification under Section 6 of the Act establishes that the entirety of the acquisition has lapsed. This plan has been emphasized and repeated time and again by several judgments in the last 15 years. Officially, the petitioners were entitled to the relief because the Supreme Court quashed the dispensing of Section 5(A) of the Act by order dated 21.03.2012. It is clear that the proceedings under Section 6 had to be necessarily issued within a year of that date i.e. on or before 20.03.2013. However, in the present case notification was issued on 26.04.2013. In view of the above, the petitioners’ non-inclusion as petitioner(s) by name before the Supreme Court cannot disentitle them to the relief. This is because the notification now challenged undoubtedly contains the specific reference to Khasra No.261,264 and 265 which belongs to the petitioners. Had the position been otherwise, there is no need for the respondent to have included the petitioner’s land in notification under Section 6 of the Act. In fact in that case, they would have been within their right to acquire the lands on the basis of Urgency clause earlier. It is not their case that compensation was deposited earlier in accordance with the law or that the possession was taken over on the basis of a valid acquisition.
