BASANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed to quash the land acquisition proceedings by issuing a writ of certiorari. The petitioner is the owner of land to the extent of 4 acres 8 marlas in Khasra No. 648. The said land was sought to be acquired in the year 1974 by issuing a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on October 11, 1974. The said notification was challenged in this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1346 of 1975. The said notification was quashed by this Court vide order dated August 18, 1975. Thereafter, fresh notifications were issued to ac quire the land of the petitioner in Khasra No. 648. Notification under section 6 of the Act was also issued. According to the petitioner, the purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired was to provide abadis to the landless workers/labourers and that the Gram Panchayat was willing to part with the land, namely, Shamlat Deh, in Khasra No. 789 and 794 for the said purpose. Therefore, the land was avail able for the purpose for which the land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired and therefore the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by the State, it is clearly mentioned in paragraph 7 that after inspecting the land of the petitioner and the land given by the Gram Panchayat, it was considered that the land of the petitioner was suitable as com pared to the land owned by the Gram Panchayat as Shamlat Deh was away from the abadi deh. It is further stated in the written statement that the award was passed on December 23, 1976, in the presence of the petitioner. These facts are not being controverted by the petitioner. The award was passed on December 23, 1976. The writ petition was filed on April 27, 1981, i. e. , nearly after a lapse of five years. There is no explanation given by the petitioner for the delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings. When the award has been passed and it has become final, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the acquisition proceedings after a lapse of for. more than four years. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the possession of the land was not taken by the Government and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed but under section 16 of the Act, when the Col lector has made an award under section 11, he could take possession of the land (which shall be free from all encumbrances. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to place any reliance on any provision of law or any authority to show that i the failure to take possession of land sought to be acquired vitiates the land acquisition proceedings and on that ground, the acquisition of land of the petitioner is liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE result is, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. .