RAJBIR SOLANKI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TEN years after the issue of a preliminary notification and a declaration under Section 6 and eight years after the taking over of the possession and making of the award, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the acquisition proceedings in relation to a parcel of land measuring 3 bigha and 16 biswas in Khasra No. 21/24/1 and 1 bigha in Khasra No. 22/4/2 of Village Baprola within NCT of Delhi. A communication dated 7th April, 2003 rejecting the petitioner's request for de-notification of the land in terms of Section 48 of the Act has also been assailed with a prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the de-notification Committee to reconsider the application and to de-notify the land in question. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings is on the face of it barred by unexplained delay and laches, but before we elaborate on that aspect, we need to set out a few facts relevant to the present controversy.

(2.) THE petitioners claim to be joint owners of the land in dispute which was notified under Section 4 read with 17 (1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act for public purpose of development of a Growth Centre at Village Bakrola in terms of a notification dated 12th August, 1997. A declaration under Section 6 followed on 26th May, 1998. An award was also made and published by the collector on 25th May, 2000. According to the respondents, the possession of the land was taken over by them on 1st October, 1999, three years whereafter the petitioners appear to have filed a representation dated 3rd September, 2002 seeking de-notification of the land. That representation was examined and rejected in terms of an intimation dated 7th July, 2003 on the ground that section 48 (1) of the Act had no application since the possession of the land in question had already been taken over by the respondents. More than four years after the issue of the said notification, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition in which they have not only assailed the validity of the acquisition proceedings and sought a certiorari quashing the same but also assailed the rejection of the prayer for de-notification of the land in question.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Sethi learned counsel for the petitioners and Messrs sharma and Poddar for the respondents. We have also heard Ms. Anusuya Salwan appearing for Respondent No. 4, beneficiary of the acquisition. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings is ex-facie barred by unexplained delay and laches. There is no explanation leave alone a cogent one for complete inaction on the part of the petitioners between the date of preliminary notification issued in august, 1997 and the filing of the present writ petition ten years later. The cause of action to institute appropriate proceedings challenging the validity of the proposed acquisition had finally accrued to the petitioners on 26th May, 1998 when the declaration under Section 6 was issued by the competent authority. So much so, the petitioners allowed the Collector, Land Acquisition to go on with the award proceedings and make his award in May, 2000. The possession of the land was also in the meantime taken over by the Collector in October, 1999. Having thus allowed the proceedings to be taken to their logical conclusion, the petitioners could not, at this distant point of time, wake up from their deep slumber to assail the validity thereof. Even in the year 2002, the petitioners had only sought de-notification of the land in terms of Section 48 of the Land acquisition Act. Neither in the representation filed by them nor in any other forum did the petitioners make any grievance regarding the legality of the acquisition proceedings. Ten years after the issue of the declaration, it is no longer possible for this court to entertain the present writ petition or to examine the validity of the proceedings which have attained finality. The approach to be adopted by a writ court in writ petitions challenging the land acquisition proceedings is settled by a long line of decisions rendered by the supreme Court. In Aflatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors. AIR 1974 sc 2077, the declaration under Section 6 was issued in the year 1966 whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 1972. The Supreme Court considered this delay to be sufficient to warrant dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of laches. The Court held that if there was any defect in the notification under Section 4 issued as early as in the year 1959 and the declaration under section 6 issued in the year 1966, there was no reason why the petitioners should have waited till the year 1972 to come to the Court. It was not, observed the Court, permissible for the petitioners to sit on the fence, allow the Government to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis of notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and then attack the same on grounds which were available to them when the notification was published. The following passage is in this regard instructive :