Holding

A writ petition filed after a delay of more than two and a half years is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, and the order under Section 17(4) exempting Section 5‑A is valid.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 8 January 1980 to acquire 60 plots of land for a market yard, simultaneously exempting the proceedings from Section 5‑A by an order under Section 17(4). A subsequent notification under Section 6 authorised the Collector to take possession, which was done. In June 1982 the Collector issued compensation notices under Section 9(3). Three landowners filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the validity of the acquisition on grounds of lack of notice, prejudice from the Section 17(4) order, absence of urgency and the existence of a house on one plot. The High Court dismissed the petition without reasons. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the petition, filed more than two and a half years after the acquisition proceedings began, was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, that the order under Section 17(4) was valid, and that there was no basis for interference despite disputed factual issues. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings can be dismissed solely on the ground of delay of over two years.
Whether the court can interfere with the validity of an order under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act exempting Section 5‑A.
Whether disputed factual questions (e.g., existence of a house, ownership) preclude the court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.
Whether the acquisition proceedings were undertaken with sufficient urgency to justify the exemption.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 226
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 17(4), s. 4(1), s. 5-A, s. 6, s. 9(3)

Subjects

Land acquisitionDelaySection 17(4) exemptionSection 5-AWrit petitionPublic purposePossessionCompensationArticle 226

Judgment

417

HARI SINGH & ORS. A
v.
r STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
'(A.P. SEN ~ E.S. VENKATARAMIAH. JJ.] ·B
. April 6, 19$4
• Land Acquisition Act, I 894-s. 4 and s.6-Acq>lsltlon proceedings
(Notification u/.<.4 incorporating ord~r u/s. 17 (4) exempting application
of s .. ~A and notification u/s. 6 containing. order u/s. I 7 (/) authorising
· Collector 10 ·1ake possesSion issued and published in official Gazette)- c
Validity of acqui.dtion proceedings challenged by ~·ay of writ petiticm 0.fter
a period of o'1er two years-Whether petition could be dismissed on· ground
af delay-Whtther court could interfere when facts alleged in petition are
disputed.

On January 8, '1980 the respondent State issued a notification urider
Se~. 4 (I) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for acquisition of 60 ad-
D
joining pJots of land of_ two small villaacs for construction of a market
yard. Th_e notification alSo contained an order of the Government made
under Sec. 17(4) of the Act directing that Sec. SA would not apply to tho
said proc.eedings. The notification was publiShed in the. Official Gazetto
dated January 9, 1980. That notification was followed by another··· noti-
fication dated January .9, 1980 issued under Sec. 6 of the Act. This
E
notification contained an order made under Sec .. 17 (I) of the Act autho-
• rising the ColleCtor to take possession of the plot's. The notification was
·published in the official Gazette dated January 10, 1980. Tho possessfon
of the Plots was ·taken in course of the acquisition· proceedings. · Jn or
a,bout June 1982 notices were issued by the CollectOr to the interested
persons for determining the compensation . pa:Yable to- them. By filing
F
a writ petition in the High Court 1he appellants qdestioiied the validitY
of the acquisition proceedings in regard to certain plots -on the groundS
that : (!) t)ley had no knowledge of the acquisition ·proceedings and were
prejudiced by the order made under sec. 17 (4)i (2) there was no urgency
sufficient in law to sustain the .order made under. Sec. 17 (4); and 13)
Sec. 17 (4) would not be applicable because on a part of a plot of land
there was a house. The High Colt<! d'ismissed the writ petition. Hence
G
this appeaJ.

Dismissing the appeal;

'HELD : In a pmall place whero these plots are situate, the acquisition
--. of these llQds would be the talk of the town in a shortwhilo and it is·
difficult to believe that tho appellants who are resident.• of that place
H
l'f9Uld l)Ot have ~qoW!j till Jutr 1982 tqat the impu~ne<J notjfi~ation had
•

418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS· [1984} 3 S.C.R.

A been published in l98tr. Any interference in this case filed after two and
U half years' Wirh the acqt.iisition protecdings· is likely to cause -serious
'public prejudice. This appea.1 should, th:rcfote1 fail ,On the ground of.
delay alone. · [420G-H) . · • :
Appellant No. r claims to be the owner of plot No. 249, On beb•lf
of .the respondents it) is urged that ·appella9-t No. 1 is recorded only as a,
B co-tenure holder alongwith five others and they h~ve not iplpeached the
notifications. With regard to the· allegations about the existenc'e of a
house on this plot, it is seen that the said. fact is denied. Tho resPon ..
· dents rely upon some· statements recorded by · th.e revt'nue authorities
~uggesting that there was no_ house·- on thi's plot on the dafe of the
notification. This is a.disputed question of fact. ·Appellant· No. 2 who •
claiins to be_the owiier of plot No. 261 is. stated ·to have purchased it
c . op-NQvember 17, -19.80 ..after the impugned notificJtions. were published.
·The title of appellant No. 3 to pl it No. J33 is denied by R K. Kannaujia,
Secreh\,ry,, Krishi Utpadan .M1odi _Sarni ti, Kheragarh. Ia t~is St~te._of
affSlirs. where there are disputed questions_ of f;.lcts it cannot be said that
(he appe11ants have made out any case for .inteiference under Article
226 of the Const.itution. [42 IB·D] ~
F::
•
L

There is.no ground to held that the order made undei: s~cti.on J7
(4)-0f the A>t exempting the operation of section 5-A ot the Act is bad I'
in Jaw. even though _there appears to be .some adminis_tralive delay irr
commencing
.
the construction 9f the Market
'
Yard. ~
[421F·G]
'
~
.. State. of Punjab v. ·. Gucdlal Singh & Ors., [1980] .1 S.C.R. · 1011,
; .K feferrid to. ·

. CivIL APl'fLLAl'E JuRlSDIQTION :·Ci.Yi! Appeal No. 5313 of 1983,, · . --'"
Appeal by Special leave fr.om the Judgment and Order dated
the 17th January, 1983 in CMWP. No. 8397of1982. ·
,, .:' . .
F Shanti Bhusharj and S. Markandeya for the Appellant..
'
.,·!-
Gopal Subrtimanlam and Mrs. S. Di":shit for the Respondents. ·
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
'
VENKATARAMiAa, J.. About 45 plots of land of Kheragarh
G village. and about 15 adjoining plots of land of Na~ala
Udaiya village situated in the district of Agra were notified under
~ection 4 (I) of the Land Acpuisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of
1894) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for acquisition fora
p'Ublic .purpose, namely, for the construction of the Market Yard
of tl:te Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kl:teragarl:t under a·. noti
fication dated .January 8, 1980 issued by the Government of the
St~ti; Qf tJtt~r Praclesll· . As tl:te plots of land . in question w)Jich;
. HARi SINGH v. U; P. STATE (Venkataramiah, J.) 419
• A
were agricu.Itur.al lands were urg·ently reqLtired for the aforesaid .
purpose and tho Government was of the view that it was necessary
to direct that section 5-A of the Act should not apply fo the said
acquisition proceedings, it simultaneously made an' order under
section· 17 (4) of The Ac! direeiing that section 5-A wouhl not·
apply to the said proceedings and incorporated the said order also
B
in the notification issued under section 4 (1) of the Act. The
· notification was published in the Official Gazette dated January
9, 1980. This. was followed by a notification dated January 9,
1980 under section 6 of the Act published in. the Official Gazette
dated Janu~ry IQ, 198.0. That notification containe<) an/order
made under section 17 (I) of the.Act authorising the Collector to
take possession of the plots on the expiration of fifteen days from
the publication of the notice under section 9 (I) of the Act though
no award under section 11 of the Act had been made. The above
said plots of land which were in all aoout 60 in number belonged
to a number of persons. The total extent of land proposed to be
acquired was about 41 .46 acres. The possession of all the plots D
.of land was also taken in the course of the said acquisition pro-
ceedings. In or about June. 1982, notices were issued· by the
Collector to various persons having interest in the said plots
under. sectiop 9 (3) of the Act for the purpose 'of determining the
compensation payable to them. After the issue o.f the said notices,
three persons Hari Singh (appellant No. 1), Pooran Chand (appe- E
llant No. 2) and Munna Lal (appellant No. 3) filed a writ petjtion
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8397 of 1982 on the file of the
High Court of Allahabad questioning the validity of the acqui-
sition proceedings as regards 6 plots of land in Kheragarh village
out of th~ total of about 60 plots of land which had been acquired
by the State Government in the above said prnceedlngs. Appellallt F
No. 1 claimed to be the owner of plots Nos. 249, 250 and 252.
Appellant No. 2 claimed. to be the owner 'of plot No. 261 and
appellant No. 3 claime.d to be the owner of plots Nos. 133 and ·
134. Appellant No. I pleaded that there was a house sittiated on
plot No. 249 and that he had also installed a flour mill on it.
They all pleaded thllt they had . uo knowledge· ot the. acquisition
· proceedings and were prejudiced by the order made under section
17 (4) of the Act exemptiag the operation of section 5-A of the
Act in the case of these proceedingJ. · They further pleaded that
there was no urgency sufficient in Jaw to sustain the order made
under.. section 17 (4) of the Act as nothing had been done on the H
Jiirtds for nearly two years. Appellant No. I also pleaded that
.420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS !1984] 3 S.C.R.
A section 17 (4) of the Act would not b; applicable beca~se on a
part of his land there was a house., They also applied for an
interim order restraining the ·Collector from· dispossessing them
from th~ plots in qu<;stion. On September 9, 1982 the High Court
made an interim order restraining the. respondents from <lispos-
sessing the appellants from the plots until. further orders, unless
they had already been dispos.sessed. But. on January J 7, 1983, the
High Court rejected the writ petition at the stage· of admission
after hearing the advocates for both the parties. This appeal by
special leave is filed by the appellants under Article 136 of the
.
Constitution on against the order of the High Court.
c The High Court has not given any reasons for its ·order
dismissing the writpetition. TJie order reads : 'Rejected'. ·

We have been taken through the writ petition, counter affi-
davits. and other papers filed in the High Court and· in this Court.
D
At the .out set we are of the view. that the writ petition filed
in July, 1982 questioning. the notification issued in 1anuary, 1980
after a delay of nearly two and a half years is liable to be dis·
missed on the ground of !aches only. It is.no doubt true ·that th~.
appellant have pleaded that they did not know anything about
E the notifications which had been published in the Gazelle till
they eame to ·know of the notices issued under section 9 (3) of
the Act but the'y have not pleaded that there was .no. publication
in the locality ·of the public notice or' \he substance.of the noti-
. fication as required by . section 4 (1) of the Act. Jt should be
presumed .. that official acts would have been performed· duly as. ·:
F required by law. It is significant that a large number of persons
who own the. remainin~ plots have not challenged the acquisition
proceedings. J"he only other petition in wh!ch these proceedings.
are challenge'd is Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. I 1476 of 1982
on the file of the High Court filed subsequently by. Amar Singh
and (our others. Moreoverin a small place like Kheragarh where
G these plots are situate, the acquisition of these lands-would be the.
talk of the town in' a shortwhile and it is difficult to believe that
the appellant who are residents of that .pla'ce would not have
kriown till July, ·1982 that the impugned notification had been
published in 1980. Any interference in this case filed after· two
H ' and a half years with the acquisition proceedings is likely to cause
serious public prejudice. This apl'eal should, therefore, fail on
the ground ~of delay)lone. ·
HAR\ SiNGH v. u. p, STATE (Venkotaramiah, J,) 421

• Now even·onmerits there appears to be no substance in the A
case of the appellants.

At the.hearing of this appeal, the appellants have confined
their case to plots Nos. 249, 26! and 133 and have given up their
case in regard to pl?ts Nos. iso, 252 iµid 134,
B
Appellant No. 1 claims to be the owner of plot No. 249.
On behalf of the respondents it is urged that appellant No. I is
recorded only as a co-tenure hotqer alongwith five others and
they have not impeached the notifications. With regard to the
allegation about the existence of.a house on this plot, it is seen
that the said fact is denied. · The respondents rely upon ·some c
statements recorded by tlle ·revenue authorities -suggesting · that
there was no house on this plot on the date of the notification.
This is a disputed question of fact, Appellant. No. 2 who claims
to be the owner of plot No. 261 is stated to have purchased it on
November 17, 1980 after the impugned nol!fications were pub-
lished. The title of appellant No. 3 to plot No. 133 is denied by ·D
R. K Kannaujia, Secretary, Kri~hi Utpadari Mandi· Samiti,
Kheragarh. In this sta,te of affairs where ther~ are disputed
. questions of fact it cannot be said that the appellants have made
out any case for interference tinder Article 226 of the Consti. -
tution.
' E
On behalf of the appellants reliance is, however, placed on a
decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh & Ors.(1)
In that decision the main point m~de out was that the acq"isition
proceedings had been engineere!i ma/a fide by a State Minister.
We· do not have any such allegation in the' present case; In the
circumstances of this case we do not find that there is any ground
.. to hold that the order made Ul)der section 17 (4) of the Act.exemp-
ting the operation of seetion 5-A of th~ Act is bad in law even
though there appears to be some administrative delay in commen-
cing the constr11ction of the Market Yard. Some photographs of
the la.nd produced before us, howevei;, show that the work of
construction has already been commeneed. · G-0

We do not, .therefore, find that there is any ground to interfere
•with the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition. The
appeal fails and it is dismiS£ed with .costs.
··i
H. S.K. Appeal dismissed. H
(1). (1980] 1 $.C,R, I07i.