REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 11023-
11026/2010
(ARISING OUT OF CC NOS. 4610-4613/2010)
Sawaran Lata etc. ..Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents
ORDER
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. These special leave petitions reveal a very sorry state of
affair and make it evident that litigants are eager to abuse the
process of the Court, having no idea for the law of
limitation/delay and laches.
2. These special leave petitions have been filed against the
judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
dated 30.5.2009 by which the Civil Writ Petition Nos.8794 of
2009 and 8761 of 2009 have been dismissed only on the
ground of delay. The Review Petitions were filed which were
also time barred by 48 days. The same stood dismissed vide
order dated 25.9.2009. These special leave petitions have
been filed with an inordinate delay of 172 days. Petitioners
sought relief of quashing the land acquisition proceedings in
respect of which the award had been made under Section 11
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as “Act
1894”) on 27.4.2004.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these petitions
are that the respondent – State of Haryana issued a
notification under Section 4 of Act 1894 in respect of a huge
chunk of land including some land of the petitioners on 2nd
May, 2001. Substance of the said notification was published
in two newspapers on 5.5.2001. The respondents issued a
declaration under Section 6 of Act 1894 on 30.4.2002 and the
substance thereof was also published in local newspapers
immediately thereafter. The Land Acquisition Collector made
an award on 27.4.2004 and in pursuance thereof, the
2
respondents took possession of the land and removed the trees
from the land of the petitioners.
4. Petitioners approached the High Court by filing Writ
Petition Nos. 8794/2009 and 8761/2009 on 28.5.2009
praying for quashing the notification dated 2.5.2001 under
Section 4 and declaration dated 30.4.2002 under Section 6 of
Act 1894. The High Court dismissed both the petitions on the
ground of delay observing that the award under Section 11 of
Act 1894 had already been made on 27.4.2004. Being
aggrieved, petitioners filed Review Petitions with 48 days’ delay
which have also been dismissed vide order dated 25.9.2009.
These petitions have been filed with 172 days’ delay. There is
further delay of 37 days’ in re-filing of the same.
5. The issue involved in these petitions is as to whether the
acquisition proceedings can be challenged at a belated stage.
The issue is no more res integra as the issue has been
considered by this Court time and again.
3
6. When a person challenges Section 4 Notification on any
ground, it should be challenged within a reasonable period,
and if the acquisition is challenged at a belated stage, the
petition deserves to be dismissed only on this count. (Vide
Hari Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1984 SC 1020).
7. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Aflatoon & Ors.
Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 2077, while
dealing with the issue, observed as under:-
“…. to have sat on the fence and allowed the
government to complete the acquisition on the
basis that notification under Section 4 and the
declaration under Section 6 were valid and
then to attack the notification on the grounds
which were available to them at the time when
the notification was published, would be
putting a premium of dilatory tactics. The writ
petitions are liable to be dismissed on the
ground of laches and delay on the part of the
petitioner.”
8. Same view has been reiterated by this Court observing
that acquisition proceedings should be challenged before the
same attain finality, in State of Mysore Vs. V.K. Kangan AIR
4
1975 SC 2190; PT. Girdharan Prasad Missir Vs. State of
Bihar (1980) 2 SCC 83; Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India AIR
1992 SC 1414; State of Orissa Vs. Dhobei Sethi & Anr.
(1995) 5 SCC 583; State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar AIR
1995 SC 1991; State of Tamil Nadu Vs. L. Krishnan AIR
1996 SC 497; and C. Padma & Ors. Vs. Dy. Secretary to
Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 627.
9. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs.
Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
AIR 1997 SC 482, this Court observed as under:-
“If the interested person allows the grass
to grow under his feet by allowing the
acquisition proceedings to go on and reach its
terminus in the award and possession is taken
in furtherance thereof and vest in the State
free from all encumbrances, the slumbered
interested person would be told off the
gates of the Court that his grievance should
not be entertained 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. (Emphasis added)5
10. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Rajasthan &
Ors. Vs. D.R. Laxmi & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 445, wherein this
Court has held that even the void proceedings need not be set
at naught if the party has not approached the Court within
reasonable time, as judicial review is not permissible at a
belated stage. This Court held as under:
“……Delay in challenging the notification was
fatal and writ petition entails with dismissal on
grounds of laches. 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 loathe to quash the
notifications……..The order or action, if ultra
vires the power, becomes void and it does
not confer any right. But the action need
not necessarily be set at naught in all
events. Though the order may be void, if
the party does not approach the Court
within reasonable time, which is always a
question of fact and have the order
invalidated or acquiesced or waived, the
discretion of the Court has to be exercised
in a reasonable manner. When the discretion
has been conferred on the Court, the Court
may in appropriate case decline to grant the
relief, even if it holds that the order was void.
The net result is that extraordinary jurisdiction
of the Court may not be exercised in such
circumstances.” (Emphasis Added)6
11. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in
Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors.
AIR 2003 SC 234; and Haryana State Handloom &
Handicrafts Corporation Ltd. Vs. Jain School Society AIR
2004 SC 850.
12. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioners
that they had not been aware of acquisition proceedings as the
only ground taken in the writ petition has been that substance
of the notification under Section 4 and declaration under
Section 6 of Act 1894 had been published in the newspapers
having no wide circulation. Even if, the submission made by
the petitioners is accepted, it cannot be presumed that they
could not be aware of acquisition proceedings for the reason
that very huge chunk of land belonging to large number of
tenure holders had been notified for acquisition. Therefore, it
should have been a talk of the town. Thus, it cannot be
presumed that petitioners could not have knowledge of the
acquisition proceedings.
7
13. In such circumstances, we do not find any fault with the
impugned judgment and order. The petitions are dismissed on
the ground of delay.
………………………………J.
(J.M. PANCHAL)
……………………………….J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
New Delhi,
April 01, 2010
8