RADHEY SHAM GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER unexplained inordinate delay in the finalisation of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act might well taint them with the vice of a colourable exercise of power and thus wholly vitiate the same--is the meaningful issue which comes to the fore in this reference to the Full Bench.

(2.) THOUGH the matrix giving rise to the aforesaid issue is not in serious dispute yet it calls for a somewhat detailed notice. Way back on the 8th Sept. , 1972, the respondent-State issued two notifications (Annexures P. 1 and P. 2) under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) for acquiring a huge compact area of 134 Acres 3 Kanals and 1 Marla situated in the two separate revenue estates of Ballabgarh and Ranhera for the specific purpose of the development of a Mandi Township astride the Delhi--Mathura road. Comprised therein was an area of 8 Kanals within the revenue estate of Ballabhgarh originally owned by Shri Nawal Singh who had sold the same on the 11th Sept. , 1961, to one Jaswant Rai for setting up an industry and he enclosed the same by a boundary wall. However in the month of Aug. , 1980 the said Jaswant Rai sold the said area to the three petitioners vide two separate sale deeds dated the 20th Aug. , 1980 and 29th Aug. , 1980 for a consideration of Rupees 50,000/- each. This area adjoins the boundary wall of the factory of respondent No. 3, Messrs Printers House (Private) Ltd. Meanwhile on the 29th Nov. , 1972, a notification under Section 6 vide Annexure P 3 was issued in respect of an area measuring 10 Acres 4 Kanals in the revenue estate of Ballabgarh and 25 Acres 6 Kanals 7 Marlas in the revenue estate of Ranhera. Proceedings under Section 9 of the Act were duly initiated by the Land Acquisition Collector and an award therefor followed and later the Colonization Department got prepared precise plans for the Mandi area and even auctioned plots therein on the 21st March, notifications under S. 6 (Annexures P. 4 and P. 5) were issued with regard to substantial areas within the revenue estates of Ballabgarh and Ranhera for the same purpose of the establishment of Mandi Township. Certain areas of respondent No. 3 which were covered by the aforementioned notification were released by the respondent-State on a representation made by them. However, respondent No. 3 approached the Colonization Department for the transfer of lands now owned by the petitioners in order to widen the frontage of their factory on the Delhi Mathura road and to effectuate that purpose a direction was issued to the Land Acquisition Collector to initiate proceedings for making the award in respect of the lands now owned by the petitioners and by Nawal Singh. On the 5th Aug. , 1981, the Land Acquisition Collector purporting to act under Section 9 of the Act issued notice (Annexure P. 6) to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Jaswant Rai for appearing before him on the 21st Aug. , 1981, for submitting a claim regarding the value of his land. The petitioners then preferred the writ petition to quash the impugned notice as also Annexure P 4 and P 5 in so far as they relate to the land of the petitioners. The gravamen of the petitioner's case is that the issuance of the impugned notice after well-nigh 9 years of the original notification under S. 4 is a colourable exercise of power motivated by considerations entirely extraneous and collateral to the original purpose of the acquisition. It is also the stand that the land of the petitioners stood automatically released as it was not comprised within Section 6 notification issued on the 29th Nov. , 1972, Annexure P. 3.

(3.) IN the return filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, a preliminary objection was raised that the challenge to the original notification after a lapse of about 9 years suffered from unexplained laches and therefore merited dismissal on that score alone. The broad outlines of the facts in the writ petition are not disputed and the respondent-state rests itself on the legalistic stand that no limitation being prescribed the land of the petitioner continued to be subject to the acquisition proceedings and consequently the notices under Section 9 as also the original notifications were valid qua them. Significantly not a hint of any explanation for a delay of 9 years in finalising the acquisition qua the land of the petitioners is even suggested.