SARBATI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed on 19th July, 1991 lays challenge to Land Acquisition proceedings conducted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short). Notification under Section 4 was issued on 30th October, 1963. Notification under Section 6 was made on 16th January, 1969. Award of compensation was made on 10th September, 1986. The challenge is laid on dual grounds. Legality of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 has been challenged and consequently the validity of the award, in the alternative the proceedings arc sought to be struck down on the ground of unreasonable delay inmaking the award calculated from the dates of notifications undersections 4 and 6 of the Act. It is submitted that construction work of the petitioner is standing on the land possession where of was not taken till now and belated taking of possession by the respondent would irreparably prejudice the petitioners.

(2.) In the counter it is submitted that the land of the petitioner alongwith the land belonging to several other persons has been acquired for executing the prestigious project of Narela Township whereby the respondents are going to house more than one million persons and the project is at an advanced stage of execution. The petitioners had participated in the acquisition proceedings, filed objections and preferred claim for payment and enhancement of compensation. The award was made within the stautory li introduced by amendement Act of 1984. If this Court interferred, it would not be in public interest inasmuch as the land belonging to the petitioners being part and parcel of a very big project which has substantially progressed, would disturb and shatter the whole project. The petitioner is guilty of laches and culpable delay disentitling him discretionary relief in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is also submitted that there were several other writ petitions filed byowners of pieces of land covered in the same project and the land having been acquired under the same impugned notifications, which have all been dismissed by .this court and hence the present petition too deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the petitioner's challenge to the land acquisition proceedings must fail. We have already noticed the admitted dates of the two notifications and the award. The petitioner having participated in the award proceedings and having not challenged the legality of the two notifications before the making of the award, he cannot now be permitted to question the validity of the two notifications so belatedly. In so far as the challenge founded on the ground of long lapse of time between the dates of the two notifications and the date of making of the award is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Chand Others Vs. UOI J.T. 1993 (5) SC 465. 1993 (27) DRJ 443. Though certain observations made by their Lordships do assist the petitioner, yet in the ultimate analysis we find the petitioner herein not entitled to any relief for the paramount consideration of public interest coupled additionally with delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. We have already noticed the conduct of the petitioner not challenging the two notificatioins upto the date of making of the award inspite of his participating in the proceedings. The award having been made on 10th September, 1986 the petitioner did not even then come up to this court complaining of the delay but chose to wait until 19th July, 1991, for about five years and there is no explanation coming forward for the delay.