TEK CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 7th January, 2002 by which the learned Single Judge rejected the challenge of the appellant to the acquisition proceedings. It is not disputed that the land was notified under section 4 read with section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as far back as 18th April, 1995. A declaration under Section 6 was issued on 26th April, 1996 and Award was made and published on 24th April, 1998. The appellant challenged the acquisition proceedings only in the year 2000. The only explanation of the appellant for challenging the acquisition proceedings after an inordinate delay of five years is that the appellant had preferred a representation to the third respondent against the acquisition of land which was being pursued by him bona fide. Assuming that this to be so, it appears that the appellant remained on his own oars and did not challenge the acquisition proceedings for a long-time. It appears to us that on the ground of preferring a non-statutory representation before an administrative authority the delay in filing the writ petition cannot be excused.

(2.) Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was right in rejecting the writ petition on the ground of laches on the part of the appellant. Even otherwise we do not find any illegality in the acquisition proceedings calling for our interference. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that some of the land which was notified under the aforesaid notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has been denotified. He claims similar treatment in respect of the land of the appellant.

(3.) We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. In this regard it may be pointed out that possession of the land was taken over by means of execution of a panchnama on 13th January, 1997. The Supreme Court in Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1239 dealt with the question of validity of the mode of taking possession by drafting the Panchnama in the presence of Panchas and taking possession and giving delivery of the land. The Supreme Court in this regard held as follows "