JASVEER SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

                       [2017] 3 S.C.R. 921


                 JASVEER SINGH AND ANR.                            A
                                v.
                   STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 3790 of 2017)
                          MAYOl,2017                               B
   [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.)
      Land Acquisition Act,. 1894 - Award of compensat.lon -
Challenged - In the instant case, appellants were paid compensation
and possession was duly taken - On reference. higher compensation C
was awarded which decision attained finality - Thereafter appellant
challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing writ petition before
High Court which was held barred by delay and !aches against
which SLP was also dismissed by Supreme ,Court - Writ petition
seeking quashing of acquisition proceedings - High Court dismissed
same - On appeal held: The fact remained that the challenge of the D
appellants was barred by /aches and the said finding did not suffer
from any infirmity - Even if the appellants were permitted to lay a
fresh chc:llenge, they were required to overcome this legal bar which
 the appellants were not able to overcome.
      Dismissing the appeals, the Court                             E
      HELD: The grievance of the appellants against acquisition
proceedings on the ground that the award was not a valid award
was rejected and SLP was dismissed by this Court but permitting
a fresh challenge. The fact-remains that the challenge of the
appellants is barred by !aches and the said finding does not suffer· F
from any infirmity. There was no J;)rror in the view taken by the
High Court. [Paras 8, 9)[925-F-G; 926-A]
      Ajlatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1975) 1 SCR 802
      : (197S) 4 SCC 285; Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State
      of Rajasthan (2008) 2 SCR 521 : (2008) 4 SCC 695;             G
      Sc.waran Lata v. State of Haryana (2010) 4 SCR 40 :
      (2010) 4 SCC 532; Banda Development Authority,
      Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal [2011) 7 SCR 435 : (2011)
      5 SCC 394; Royal Orchid Hotel v. G. Tayarama Reddy
       [2011) 11 SCR 701: (2011) 10 SCC 608 - referred to.
                                                                    H
                                 921
922            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A                            Case Law Reference
            [1975] 1 SCR 802         referred to             Para3
            [2008] 2 SCR 521         referred to             Para3
            [2010] 4 SCR 40          referred to            Para3
B
            (2011] 7 SCR 435         referred to            Para3
            [2011] 11 SCR 701        referred to            Para3
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3790
      of2017.
c
            From the Judgment and Order dated 19.05.2015 of the High Court
      ofJucticature at Allahabad in Writ C No. 59918 of2014
                                    WITH
            C.A. Nos. 3787 and3786 of2017.
D
            Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Jayant Bhushan, Ashok Kumar Singh,
      Kartik Seth, Santwanu Singh, Ad vs. for the Appellant.
        P. S. Patwalia, ASG, P. N. Mishra, Sr. Adv., C. D. Singh,
  Ms. Shivali Chaudhary, Avi Pandey, Amit Sharma, Dhurv Sheoron,
E Ms. AlkaAggarwal, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Rahul
  Kaushik, Advs. for the Respondents.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
           ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. l. These appeals have been
  prefeued against the Order of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ C.
F No. 59918 of 2014 rejecting the prayer of the appellants for quashing
  the land acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification dated 18th
  Augu~t 1981 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
  The acquisition was "for the construction ofNew Broad Gauge Railway
  Line between Rampur and Haldwani" in the District ofRampur. Urgency
G clause was invoked. Possession of the land was taken on 19th September,
  1986.· The award was made on 22nd September, 1986. The appellants
  preferred reference under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation
  which was decided vide Award dated 7th December, 1988 by the District
  Judge, Rampur. First appeals against the said award were decided by
  the High Court on 29th January, 2004. This Court vide order dated 12th
H
   JASVEER SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.                         923
              [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

September, 2005 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5714-15 of2005 remanded the            A
matters to the High Court having regard to the grievance of the appellant
against denial of statutory benefits. ·
      2. On 19th December, 2005 the appellants filed a writ petition
before the High Court seeking quashing of the acquisition proceedings
which was decided by the High Court on 3rd December, 20 l 0 directing       B
redetennination of compensation. The said order was set aside by this
Court on 16th October, 2012 in Civil Appeal No.7535 of 2012. It was
observed that :
       "After considering the pros and cons, without entering into
       serious controversies and making any comment on the merit C
       of the case, we are of the considered opinion that in view of
       the judgment and order of this Court dated 26th November,
       2010, which was passed in presence of the counsel for both
       the parties, the High Court ought not to have heard the matter
       at all. Thus, the judgment and order impugned before us has
       lost its sanctity. Therefore, the same is hereby set aside.    D.
       However, in order to meet the ends of justice, we remand the
       case to the High Court to hear the writ petition afresh
       expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from
       the date of production of the certified copy of the order before
       the Hon 'ble Chief Justice. The matter may be assigned to any         E
       pc.rticular Bench by the Hon 'ble Chief Justice for /inal
       disposal. The parties shall be at liberty to raise all factual
       and legal issues involved in the case. The High Court is
       requested to deal with the relevant issues in detail.
       More so, if the respondents are so aggrieved regarding F
       withdrawal of their appeals, which had been remanded by
       this Court for determining the entitlement of interest
       under Section 23-(JA) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and
       an application is made by the respondent to revive the same,
       the High Court may consider and decide the said application
       in accordance with Law. All the matters shall be heard G
       simultaneously by the same Bench if the appeals are
       restored. "
       3. Thereafter, the High Court considered the contention of the
 appellants that the award in respect of compensation was no award in
                                                                             H
924             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 3 S.C.R.


 A the eye of law and though the possession was taken long back and
   railway line had been laid out, the acquisition proceedings were liable to
   be set aside and compensation was liable to be awarded at present market
   rate. The High Court rejected the said plea vide judgment dated 30th
   May, 2014 in Writ-C No.77449 of2005. It was observed that objection
   of the appellants against the award had already been considered and
 B
   remand by the Supreme Court on 12th September, 2005 was only in
   respect of statutory benefits. For the first time plea was sought to be
   raised in the writ petition against validity of acquisition which was
   impermissible in view oflaw laid down by this Court in Aflatoon versus
   Lt. Governor of Delhi 1, Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. versus State of
 C Rajasthan 2, Sawaran Lata versus State of Haryana 3 and Banda
   Development Authority, Banda versus Moti La!Agarwal4 • Judgment of
   this Court in Royal Orchid Hotel versus G. Tayarama Reddy 5 was
   distinguished as that case related to fraudulent exercise of power of
   eminent domain. The High Court concluded:
 D          " 45. Taking into consideration the entire facts and
            circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the writ
            petition is highly barred by latches and deserves to be
            dismissed on the ground of latches alone.
            46. As has been observed above, the petitioners' main
 E          grievance is for enhancement of compensation, for which the
            petitioner has already filed First Appeal No.880 of 1993 and
            First Appeal No.401of1998 which appeals are being allowed
            by order of the date, we see no reason to entertain the writ
            petition.
            47. Although, various submissions on merits chdlenging the
 F
            entire acquisition proceedings have been raised by learned
            counsel for the petitioners, but we having taken the view that .
            the writ petition is highly barred by latches, we do not find it
            necessary to enter into the submissions raised by learned
            counsel for the petitioners on merits. "
·G         4. The appellant thereafter preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27109 of
      2014 which was dismissed. However, it was observed that appellants
       I (1975) 4.SCC 285

      '(2008) 4 sec 695
      '(2010) 4 sec 532
      •c2011i 5 sec 394
 H    '(2011i 10 sec 608
   JA~VEER SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.                            925
                    [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

are at liberty to work out their grievance based on the new Land A
Acquisition Act (2013) by preferring appropriate proceedings. The
appellant thereafter filed W.P. No.77449 of2005 from which these appeals
have arisen.
      5. The High Court dismissed the writ petition with the following
observations:                                                                  B
      " From the facts as noticed herein above, we are of the
      considered opinion that not only the Award had been made,
      the petitioners had also filed a Rejerence Application which
      was rejected and against the Reference Order, they filed First
      Appeal, referred to above, which has also been dismissed.                c
      There is substance in the allegations made. "
       6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
       7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the present
case the award should be held to have not been validly made and on that
ground the proceedings should be held to have lapsed.                      D
      8. We are unable to accept the above submission. It is seen from
the above resume of the proceedings that the appellants were paid
compensation and possession was duly taken.- The appellants also
preferred reference on which higher compensation was awarded and
matter attained finality upto this Court. The appellants thereafter filed ii    E
writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings which was held to
barred by delay and latches against which SLP was dismissed by this
Court. Of course, an observation was made that the appellants could
prefer appropriate proceedings based on their grievance under the 2013
Act.
                                                                                F
        9. The grievance of the appellants against acquisition proceedings
 on the ground that the award was not a valid award was rejectecl and
 SLP was dismissed by this Court but permitting a fresh challenge. The
 fact remains that the challenge of the appellants is barred by !aches and
 the said finding does not suffer from any infirmity. Even ifthe appellants     G
 were permitted to lay a fresh challenge, they are required to overcome
 this legal bar which in our view the appellants have not been able to
 overcome.


                                                                                H
926              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A            I0. We, thus, do not find any error in the view taken by the High
      Court. The appeals are dismissed.


      Devika Gujral                                            Appeals dismissed.