PURSHOTAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these five writ petitions relate to the acquisition of land in village Bharda Tehsil Chittorghargh for which notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act were issued by the State Government, which have been challenged by the petitioners by filing these five separate petitions and therefore 1 propose to dispose them of by one judgment, On 4 -3 -1966, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. Another notification purporting to be under Section 6 of the Act was thereafter issued by the State Government and the same was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 5th May, 1966. Thereafter notices to the individual Khatedars of the land were issued under Section 9 of the Act for assessing the compensation. It is alleged that the petitioners had filed their claims before the Land Acquisition Officer but no substantial proceedings could be taken by the said officer. The notices under Section 9 of the Act were, however, issued on 6.6.68 and the claims were filed by the petitioners on 29.8.68. When the proceedings were going on before the Land, Acquisition Officer for determining the compensation, the petitioners preferred to file these writ petitions in this Court on 28.4.1970 for a declaration that notification issued by the State Government under Section 6 be declared void as the, State Government have initiated the proceedings for acquisition for Birla Cement Work, Chittorgarh, without complying with the requirement of Chapter VII of the Act. This lacuna, according to the petitioners, vitiates the; entires proceedings and therefore it was prayed that the notifications under Section 6 and the subsequent proceedings be declared void.

(2.) ELABORATE replies have been filed by the State Government as well as the Birla Cement Works, Chittoragh, denying the statements made by the petitioners. But I need not go into the merits of these denials as the petitions can be disposed of on the point of laches only.

(3.) THIS Court by its order dated 21st Much, 1971, allowed the petitioners at their request time to explain the laches on their part to file the writ petitions after such a long time. But in spite of the time allowed to the petitioners, no explanation has been given on behalf of the petitioners. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, argued that the petitions should not be thrown off on the plea of laches if the fundamental rights of the, petitioners are involved He also urged that as long as the possession of the: land had not been taken from the petitioners, it was not necessary for them to, file writ petitions and if the petitioners took part in the proceedings for the assessment of compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, that conduct of the petitioners should not be considered as their acquiescence and should not come in their way to challenge the validity of the notification under Section 6 He also argued that unless the opposite party's cause was in any manner prejudiced by the delay in bringing these petitions before this Court, laches, if any, should not have any effect for seeking remedy in this Court.