Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5.
By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notification issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) and under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 3rd March, 1989 and 31st March, 1989 respectively.
This writ petition has been filed on 20th October, 2011 i.e. after more than 22 years from the date of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents that writ petition is wholly barred by laches and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
The petitioner in the writ petition has not explained the laches of 22 years in filing the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in his oral submission, has submitted that land was earlier acquired for UPSIDC and thereafter was transferred to NOIDA after its constitution in the year 1992.
The writ petition does not give any explanation for approaching the Court with 22 years delay. The explanation sought to be offered during oral submission that land was transferred in the year 1992 to the NOIDA also is not sufficient explanation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Chandra Deodhar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 259. In the said case the writ petition was filed in the year 1969 although the procedure for making promotion to the posts of Deputy Collector on the basis of divisional select lists, had been in operation for a long number of years, at any rate from 7th April, 1961" and the Rules of 30th July, 1959 were also given effect to since the date of their enactment. The explanation was sought to be given that when petition in one Kapoor's case was decided by the Bombay High Court the petitioners came to know that it was the case of the State Government in that petition and that case was accepted by the Bombay High Court that the Rules of 30th July, 1959 were the unified rules of recruitment to the posts of Deputy Collector applicable throughout the reorganised State of Bombay. In the said case the delay and laches in filing the petition were satisfactory explained, hence the said case does not help the petitioner in facts of the present case where the delay of 22 years has not been explained.
A Full Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.37443 of 2011 (Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 21st October, 2011, while deciding bunch of writ petitions challenging the notifications under Section 4 and 6 has elaborately considered the question of delay. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sawaran Lata & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 4 SCC 532, the Full Bench in the aforesaid case laid down following:-
"Shri Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Developers Association has also placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Apex Court in A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao & Ors, 2011 (10) Scale 460. The Apex court in the said case observed that challenge to acquisition proceedings be made after a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, and the land owners need not wait for years. Following was laid down by the Apex Court in paragraphs 10 and 11 which are quoted below:-
"10. We see no reason for the land owners to wait for a few years for challenging the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on the ground of delay. If the land owners had been really aggrieved, they ought to have challenged the proceedings immediately after declaration made under Section 6 of the Act.
11. This Court has held in several judgments that if the land owners are aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings, they must challenge the same at least before an award is made and the possession of the land in question is taken by the government authorities.
It has been held in Swaika Propeties (P) Ltd. & Another vs. State of Rajasthan & Others [(2008) 4 SCC 695] as under:
"6. This Court has repeatedly held that a writ petition challenging the notification for acquisition of land, if filed after the possession having been taken, is not maintainable. In Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 11 SCC 501 where K. Ramaswamy, J. speaking for a Bench consisting of His Lordship and S.B. Majmudar, J. held: (SCC p. 520, para 29) "29. It is thus well-settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loath to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226.The fact that no third-party rights were created in the case is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches."
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. D.R. Laxmi & Ors. [(1996) 6 SCC 445] following the decision of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra) it was held :
".... When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches. ...."
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. D.R. Laxmi & Ors. [(1996) 6 SCC 445] following the decision of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra) it was held:
".....When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the leaned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches.............."
To the similar effect is the judgment of this Court in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Another vs. Shah Hyder Beig & Ors. [(2000) 2 SCC 48] wherein this Court, following the decision of this Court in C. Padma and Others vs. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N. and Others [(1997)2 SCC 627] held: (Shah Hyder case SCC p. 55, para 17) "17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N. [(1997) 2 SCC 627]...."
......................
.....................
We, however, cannot loose sight of the fact that the above grounds taken are not applicable to those writ petitioners, where the acquisition was finalised decades ago and allotment of private builders and colonisers which were complained of were not applicable in the aforesaid cases. We, now proceed to refer to cases in which there are inordinate delay and the aforesaid ground pleaded are not applicable to them. These petitions with inordinate delay relate to Noida. There are two writ petitions of Village Nithari namely; Writ Petition No.45933/2011, Ravindra Sharma & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & ors, 47545/2011, Babu Ram & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. These two writ petitions have been filed in the year 2011, where as the notification under Section 4 was issued on 01/6/1976 and declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16/9/1976. The possession was taken by the respondents on 28/10/1976 and the award was also declared on 15/7/1978. The writ petitions have been filed after more than 2 decades. There are no grounds in the writ petitions to entertain such highly barred writ petitions in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Both these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone.
The next writ petition challenging the notification of 1976 is relating to Village Chaura Sadatpur being Writ Petition No.46407/2011, i.e. Liley Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. The writ petition was filed challenging the notifications dated 01/6/1976 under Section 4 and 16/9/1976 under Section 6. Possession was taken on 28/10/1976 and the award was also declared on 25/9/1978. The writ petition having been filed after more than 2 decades deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
There are 13 writ petitions relating to Village Khoda. The notification under Section 4 was issued on 17/3/1988 and notification under Section 6 was issued on 19/7/1988. Possession of the land was taken on 01/6/1989, 01/9/1995, 12/7/1995 and 15/3/1995. The award was declared on 01/12/1991. There are no grounds in any of the writ petitions on the basis of which such highly barred writ petitions vsm be entertained by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. The aforesaid writ petitions of Village Khoda also deserves to be dismissed.
Writ Petition No.46764/2011, Ramesh & Ors. Vs. Vs. State of U.P & Ors., relates to Village Sultanpur in which notification under Section 4 was issued on 10/2/1994 and notification under Section 6 was issued on 18/7/1994 which has been challenged. The possession of the land was taken on 24/8/1995 and the award under Section 11 was declared on 09/5/1997. There are no such grounds in the writ petition which may deserve entertaining the writ petition which has been filed with such an inordinate and unexplainable delay. This writ petition also deserve to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
There is another Writ Petition No.46785/2011, Jeet Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, relating to Village Sultanpur, in which notification under Section 4 was issued on 06/12/1999 and notification under Section 6 was issued on 09/3/2000. Possession was taken on 14/3/2000 and the award was declared on 18/6/2005. There is no explanation worth considering in the writ petition of inordinate delay and laches in approaching this Court. The said writ petition also deserves to be dismissed."
The writ petition having been filed after 22 years of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act without there being any explanation, cannot be entertained and is dismissed as barred by laches.
Order Date :- 2.11.2011 Rakesh