SAWARAN LATA ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

                         [2010] 4 S.C.R. 40


A                      SAWARAN LATA ETC.
                                  v.
                   STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
      (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 11023-11026/2010)

                          APRIL 01, 2010
B
         [J.M. PANCHAL AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

         Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 6 - Land
    acquisition proceedings - Challenge to, at belated stage -
C   Land acquisition proceedings in respect of huge chunk of land
    - Notification u/s. 4 and declaration u!s. 6 - Publication in
    newspapers - Award by Land Acquisition Collector -
    Possession taken by State - Writ petition seeking quashing
    of land acquisition proceedings - Dismissed on the ground
D   of delay - Review petition also dismissed on the ground of
    delay - On appeal, held: Notification u/s. 4 should be
    challenged within a reasonable period - Petition challenging
    the same is liable to be dismissed if it is challenged at a
    belated stage - On facts, not the case of the land owners that
E   they were not aware of acquisition proceedings - Very huge
    chunk of land belonging to large number of tenure holders
    had been notified for acquisition - Order of courts below not
    called for interference - SLPs having been filed with an
    inordinate delay of 172 days, dismissed - Limitation - Delay/
F   /aches.

       Hari Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. AIR 1984 SC 1020;
  Aflatoon & Ors. vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors. AIR 1974 SC
  2077; State of.Mysore vs. V.K. Kangan AIR 1975 SC 2190;
  PT. Girdharan Prasad Missir vs. State of Bihar (1980) 2 SCC
G 83; Bhoop Singh vs. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 1414; State
  of Orissa vs. Dhobei Sethi & Anr. (1995) 5 SCC 583; State
  of Maharashtra vs. Digambar AIR 1995 SC 1991; State of
  Tamil Nadu vs. L. Krishnan AIR 1996 SC 497; C. Padma &
  Ors. vs. Dy. Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1997) 2
H                              40
  SAWARAN LATA ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA &                 41
                   ORS.
SCC 627; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. A
Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. AIR
1997 SC 482; State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. O.R Laxmi &
Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 445; Northern Indian Glass Industries vs.
Jaswant Singh & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 234; Haryana State
Handloom & Handicrafts Corporation Ltd. vs. Jain School B
Society AIR 2004 SC 850, relied on.

                    Case Law Reference:
    AIR 1984 SC 1020        Relied on.          Para 6

    AIR 1974 SC 2077        Relied on.          Para 7
                                                               c
    AIR 1975 SC 2190        Relied on.          Para 8
    (1980) 2 sec 83         Relied on.          Para 8
    AIR 1992 SC 1414        Relied on.          Para ·8        D

    (1995) 5 sec 583        Relied on.          Para 8
    AIR 1995 SC 1991        Relied on.          Para 8
    AIR 1996 SC 497         Relied on.          Para 8         E
    (1997) 2 sec 627        Relied on.          Para 8
    AIR 1997 SC 482         Relied on.          Para 9
    (1996) 6 sec 445        Relied on.          Para 10
                                                               F
    AIR 2003 SC 234         Relied on.          Para 11
    AIR 2004 SC 850         Relied on.          Para 11

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
11023-11026 of 2009.                                           G

     From the Judgment & Orders dated 30.5.2009, 25.9.2009
of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil
Writ Petition No. 8794, RP 337 in CWP 8794 of 2009, Civil
Writ Petition No. 8761 of 2009, RP No. 338 in CWP 8761 of
2009.                                                        H
    42       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A        Dinesh Verma, Rajat Sharma, R.V. Kameshwaran for the
    Petitioners.

         The Order of the Court was delivered by

                                  ORDER
B
         DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. These special leave petitions
    reveal a very sorry state of affair and make it evident that litigants
    are eager to abuse the process of the Court, having no idea
    for the law of limitation/delay and laches.
C        2. These special leave petitions have been filed against
    the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
    dated 30.5.2009 by which the Civil Writ Petition Nos.8794 of
    2009 and 8761 of 2009 have been dismissed only on the
    ground of delay. The Review Petitions were filed which were
D   also time barred by 48· days. The same stood dismissed vide
    order dated 25.9.2009. These special leave petitions have
    been filed with an inordinate delay of 172 days. Petitioners
    sought relief of quashing the land acquisition proceedings in
    respect of which the award had been made under Section 11
E   of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as "Act
    1894") on 27.4.2004.
          3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these
    petitions are that the respondent - State of Haryana issued a
    notification under Section 4 of Act 1894 in respect of a huge
F   chunk of land including some land of the petitioners on 2nd May,
    2001. Substance of the said notification was published in two
    newspapers on 5.5.2001. The respondents issued a declaration
    under Section 6 of Act 1894 on 30.4.2002 and the substance
    thereof was also published in local newspapers immediately
G   thereafter. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award on
    27.4.2004 and in pursuance thereof, the respondents took
    possession of the land and removed the trees from the land of
    the petitioners.
         4. Petitioners approached the High Court by filing Writ
H
  SAWARAN LATA ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA &                    43
        ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Petition Nos. 8794/200Q and 8761/2009 on 28.5.2009 praying A
for quashing the notification dated 2.5.2001 under Section 4
and declaration dated 30.4.2002 under Section 6 of Act 1894.
The High Court dismissed both the petitions on the ground of
delay observing that the award under Section 11 of Act 1894
had already been made on 27.4.2004. Beirig aggrieved, B
petitioners filed Review Petitions with 48 days' delay which
have also been dismissed vide order dated 25.9.2009. These
petitions have been filed with 172 days' delay. There is further
delay of 37 days' in re-filing of the same.
    5. The issue involved in these petitions is as to whether C
the acquisition proceedings can be challenged at a belated
stage. The issue is no more res integra as the issue has been
considered by this Court time and again.
      6. When a person challenges Section 4 Notification on any
                                                                    0
ground, it should be challenged within a reasonable period, and
if the acquisition is challenged at a belated stage, the petition
deserves to be dismissed only on this count. (Vide Hari Singh
& Ors. Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1984 SC 1020).
     7. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Aflatoon & Ors.      E
Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 2077, while
dealing with the issue, observed as unper:-
    ".... to have sat on the fence and allowed the government
    to complete the acquisition on the basis that notification
    under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were F
    valid and then to attack the notification on the grounds
    which were available to them at the time when the
    notification was published, would be putting a premium of
    dilatory tactics. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed
    on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the G
    petitioner."
     8. Same view has been reiterated by this Court observing
that acquisition proceedings should be challenged before the
same attain finality, in State of Mysore Vs. V.K. Kangan AIR
                                                                    H1
    44       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A 1975 SC 2190; PT. Girdharan Prasad Missir Vs. State of
  Bihar (1980) 2 SCC 83; Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India AIR
  1992 SC 1414; State of Orissa Vs. Dhobei Sethi & Anr. (1995)
  5 SCC 583; State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar AIR 1995 SC
  1991; State of Tamil Nadu Vs. L. Krishnan AIR 1996 SC 497;
B and C. Padma & Ors. Vs. Dy. Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu
  & Ors. (1997) 2 sec 627.
        9. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs.
    Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. AIR
    1997 SC 482, this Court observed as under:-
c
               "lf the interested person allows the grass to grow
         under his feet by allowing the acquisition proceedings to
         go on and reach its terminus in the award and possession
         is taken in furtherance thereof and vest in the State free
         from all encumbrances, the slumbered interested person
D
         would be told off the gates of the Court that his grievance
         should not be .entertained when there is inordinate delay
         in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the
         acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court
         should be loath to quash the notifications. (Emphasis
E        added)
         10. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Rajasthan
    & Ors. Vs. D.R. Laxmi &Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 445, wherein this
    Court has held that even the void proceedings need not be set
F   at naught if the party has not approached the Court within
    reasonable time, as judicial review is not permissible at a
    belated stage. This Court held as under:
         "...... Delay in challenging the notification was fatal and writ
         petition entails with dismissal on grounds of laches. It is
G        thus, well-settled law that when there is inordinate delay in
         filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the
         acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court
         should be loathe to quash the notifications ........ The order
         or action, if ultra vires the power, becomes void and it
H        does not confer any right. But the action need not
   SAWARAN LATA ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA &                          45
         ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
       necessarily be set at naught in all events. Though the             A
       order may be void, if the party does not approach the
       Court within reasonable time, which is always a question
       of fact and have the order invalidated or acquiesced or
       waived, the discretion of the Court has to be exercised
       in a reasonable manner. When the discretion has been               B
       conferred on the Court, the Court may in appropriate case
       decline to grant the relief, even if it holds that the order was
       void. The net result is that extraordinary jurisdiction of the
       Court may not be exercised in such circumstances."
       (Emphasis Added)                                                   c
    11. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in
Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors.
AIR 2003 SC 234; and Haryana State Handloom &
Handicrafts Corporation Ltd. Vs. Jain School Society AIR
2004 SC 850.                                              D
      12. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioners
that they had not been aware of acquisition proceedings as the
only ground taken in the writ petition has been that substance
of the notification under Section 4 and declaration under
Section 6 of Act 1894 had been published in the newspapers                E
having no wide circulation. Even if, the submission made by the
petitioners is accepted, it cannot be presumed that they could
not be aware of acquisition proceedings for the reason that very
huge chunk of land belonging to large number of tenure holders
had been notified for acquisition. Therefore, it should have been         F
a talk of the town. Thus, it cannot be presumed that petitioners
could not have knowledge of the acquisition proceedings.
     13. In such circumstances, we do not find any fault with the
impugned judgment and order. The petitions are dismissed on               G
the ground of delay.
N.J.                                          Petitions dismissed.