Madhya Pradesh High Court
Asha Ram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 September, 2021
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No.4633/2021
(Kirat Lodhi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
Writ Petition No.3626/2021
(Trilok Singh Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
Writ Petition No.3690/2021
(Ganesh Prasad Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
Writ Petition No.3693/2021
(Mahendra Kumar Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
Writ Petition No.4000/2021
(Jahar Singh Lodhi Vs The State of M.P. & others)
Writ Petition No.4066/2021
(Ram Din Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
Writ Petition No.4068/2021
(Dhan Singh Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
Writ Petition No.4069/2021
(Aannu Singh Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
Writ Petition No.4121/2021
(Prem Singh Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
Writ Petition No.4142/2021
(Laxman Singh Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
Writ Petition No.4145/2021
(Sheela Rani Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
2
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
Writ Petition No.4614/2021
(Kalu Singh Lodhi Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
Writ Petition No.4618/2021
(Jitendra Singh Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
Writ Petition No.4622/2021
(Khub Lal Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
Writ Petition No.4630/2021
(Jagat Singh Lodhi Vs The State of M.P. & others)
Writ Petition No.4638/2021
(Radhika Prasad Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
Writ Petition No.4642/2021
(Asha Ram Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
&
Writ Petition No.4646/2021
(Naval Singh Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
Date of Order 22.09.2021
Bench Constituted Single Bench
Order delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi
Whether approved for No
reporting
Name of counsels for For Petitioner: Mr. Varun Thakur,
parties Advocate.
For Respondents/State: Mr. A.P.
Singh, Deputy Advocate General
Law laid down ---
Significant Para Nos. ---
Reserved on : 31.08.2021
Delivered on :22.09.2021
3
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
(O R D E R)
(22.09.2021)
Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel
for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore,
looking to the issue involved in all these petitions, they are
being heard concomitantly.
2. As in this batch of petitions similar relief is
claimed, therefore, for the sake of convenience, facts of W.P.
No.4633/2021 are being taken up. At the outset, it is necessary
to reproduce the relief clause as sought by the petitioner, which
is as follows:-
"i) issue a Writ Order or Direction in the
nature of Certiorari and quash the impugned
award Dt.05.03.2020 (ANNEXURE P-2)
passed by Respondent No.3 alongwith all
proceedings in respect of Khasra No.152/2,
total area measuring 1.23 Hectare situated at
village Summer District Damoh, MP and;
ii) grant any other relief/s, order/s, direction/s
which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case may
kindly be granted to the petitioner including
the cost of the petition."
3. Facts
of the case in short are that the land
belonging to the petitioner situates at Village Summer, District
Damoh proposed to be acquired under the provisions of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in
short the 'Act, 2013'). As per the petitioner, the proposed land is
an agricultural land and is being cultivated by the forefathers
and then the petitioner. As per the petitioner, the said land is
only source of his livelihood. Respondent No.5/Water
Resources Department wanted to utilize the land for public
purpose as they wanted to construct a canal under 'Sitanagar
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
Irrigation Scheme'. For the said purpose, not only the land of
Village Summer but also the land of Villages Sitanagar, Bijori,
Naringhgarh, Chainpura, Barkheda Nagar, Rangir, Madiya,
Baroda Tahsil Pathria/Batigarh Distrcit Damoh was proposed
to be acquired and in that regard, a notification under Section
11 of the Act, 2013 was published in the State Gazette on
05.10.2018. The said notice was also published in the local
newspapers viz Deshbandhu and New Rashtra Bhraman on
28.12.2018 and 29.12.2018.
(3.1) As per the petitioner, the respondents deliberately
did not publish the said notice as per the
requirement of Section 11 of the Act, 2013 in a
renowned newspaper, but got the same published
in the newspapers which are not in circulation in
the area where he resides.
(3.2) As per the petitioner, the remedy available under
Section 15 of the Act, 2013 could not be availed
because no such information about such hearing in
which the petitioner could raise objection, was
given to him.
(3.3) As per the petitioner, copy of notification issued
under Section 19 of the Act, 2013 was also not
given to him. The notification under Section 19
was issued on 15.03.2019 in two newspapers i.e.
Dainik Bhaskar and New Rashtra Bhraman on
13.06.2019, but those newspapers have no proper
circulation in the locality where the petitioner
resides. Further, as per the petitioner, Section 21
notice though issued but not served upon him. In
response to Section 19 notice, the land owners
raised their objections, but those were considered
and rejected without any reason.
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
(3.4) Thereafter, an award was passed on 05.03.2020
and without any intimation, all of a sudden, the
respondents/Authority came to take possession of
the agricultural land.
(3.5) Hence, this petition has been filed pointing out
such irregularities asking relief therein that the
acquisition proceeding initiated under the
provisions of Act, 2013 in respect of the land
belonging to Khasra No.152/2 total area 1.23
hectare be quashed.
4. The respondents have file their return seeking
dismissal of the petition on the ground that after passing the
award, writ petition is not maintainable. As per the
respondents, the petitioner has suppressed the material fact and
by mentioning the incorrect facts in the petition, misled the
Court saying that mandatory requirements were not followed.
On the contrary, the respondents have come-up with a case and
filed the documents in their support that all the mandatory
requirements as provided under the provisions of the Act, 2013
were fulfilled and then only the award was passed on
05.03.2020. It is also stated in the return that out of 708
villagers, whose land has been acquired, 361 villagers have
given their account number and the amount of compensation to
the tune of Rs.23,34,96,969/- has already been deposited in
their account. It is also stated in the return that further proposal
of 55 villagers has been forwarded to the Collector for paying
their amount of compensation and that will be paid to them
very soon. A document has also been filed by the respondents
showing that some of the land owners namely Radhika and
Prem Singh (petitioners in the connected petitions) although
received their amount of compensation and, therefore, the
petition on their behalf is otherwise not maintainable. The
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
respondents have also stated in the return that the Authorities
are making all sincere endeavours for getting the account
numbers of the villagers so that the amount of compensation
could be deposited in their account. As per the return, the
construction of the dam is completed by 60% to 70%. The
acquisition of the land is purely for the public purpose and it is
not done with a view to deprive the petitioner from his
livelihood, but it is done considering the interest of public at
large so as to make their land more irrigated which would
definitely increase the productivity of the land. The
respondents have also denied the allegations made by the
petitioner that the acquisition of his land has been done without
following the mandatory requirements and violating the
provisions of the Act, 2013, on the contrary, the respondents
have filed the documents showing that all the mandatory
requirements have been followed while acquiring the
petitioner's land.
5. Reiterating the same facts as have been mentioned
in the petition, the petitioner has filed the rejoinder.
6. The respondents in their additional return have
relied upon several judgments and also stated that the petition
is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of suppression of
material fact and also of delay because the award was passed
on 05.03.2020 in pursuance to the notice of acquisition issued
under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 in the month of September,
2018 and the petition filed in the year 2021, therefore, the same
deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted a
written submission relying upon the decision of the Supreme
Court reported in (2012) 1 SCC 792 [Raghbir Singh
Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana and others] and submitted
that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
case of Raghbir Singh Sehrawat (supra), the acquisition
proceeding can be challenged even after passing the award if
the mandatory requirements for acquiring the land under the
provisions of the Act, 2013 were not followed. He has also
placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported
in (2013) 1 SCC 353 [Tukaram Kana Joshi and others Vs.
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and
others] in which, following the decision of Raghbir Singh
Sehrawat Singh (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that
against the award passed in an acquisition proceeding, writ
petition is maintainable ignoring the fact that the same suffers
from delay and laches because for rendering substantial justice,
there should not be any impediment exercising judicial
discretion. According to learned counsel for the petitioner,
while acquiring the land, the Authority not fulfilled the
mandatory requirements of Sections 11 and 15 of the Act,
2013. He has also submitted that the land is means for
livelihood of the petitioner and the same cannot be snatched
away from him in the manner it has been snatched. He has
further submitted that with the conduct of the respondents, it
can be easily seen that they acted contrary to the requirement
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General has
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and submitted that the petition suffers from delay
and laches as after passing the award, writ petition is not
maintainable. He has further submitted that the petitioner
suppressed the material facts and by mentioning incorrect facts
in the petition, misled the Court saying that mandatory
requirements were not followed. In support of his contention,
he has filed the documents showing that all the mandatory
requirements as provided under the provisions of the Act, 2013
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
were fulfilled and then only the award was passed on
05.03.2020. As per the learned Deputy Advocate General, the
construction of the dam is completed by 60% to 70%. He has
submitted that the acquisition of the land is purely for the
public purpose and it is not done with a view to deprive the
petitioner from his livelihood, but it is done considering the
interest of public at large so as to make their land more
irrigated which would definitely increase the productivity of
the land. In support of his contention, learned Deputy Advocate
General has filed several judgments passed by the Supreme
Court and claimed that the petition deserves to be dismissed on
the ground of delay and laches.
9. Considering the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and perusal of the record available, this
Court has to see whether the acquisition proceeding initiated
by the respondents under the provisions of the Act, 2013
suffers from material irregularity and illegality by not
following the mandatory requirements and whether such
proceeding can be said to be illegal depriving the petitioner
from his right and as such, the same can be quashed or not?
10. This is not the first occasion when the land of the
farmers is being acquired. The provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act, 1894') empower the
Government to acquire the land for public purpose and after
enforcement of the Act, 2013, the Act, 1894 has been repealed.
The acquisition proceeding cannot be challenged by the
petitioner or by the land owners on the ground that the
acquired land was the only source of his/her livelihood.
However, the provisions of the Act, 2013 provide that if the
land is acquired for public purpose then an adequate amount of
compensation in lieu thereof would be paid to the land owners.
The State Government also formulates the policy whenever it
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
is required for rehabilitation of the land owners and to provide
them employment etc. so as to make them comfortable for their
livelihood. Since, the grievance of the petitioner that by
depriving him from his livelihood, his land has been acquired,
therefore, the acquisition proceeding should be quashed,
cannot be considered to be a ground to challenge the
acquisition proceeding. It is not in dispute that in lieu of
acquisition of land, an award has been passed under the
provisions of the Act, 2013 on 05.03.2020. It is also not in
dispute that several farmers have already received the amount
of compensation, but some of the farmers including the
petitioner are agitating their grievance not allowing the
respondents/Authority to carry out the work for which the land
has been acquired and undoubtedly, the land has been acquired
for public purpose as on the acquired land, a dam with several
canals has to be constructed so as to provide adequate quantity
of water for irrigation and to make the land more fertile so as to
increase the production of agriculture produce.
11. In the case of Raghbir Singh Sehrawat (supra),
massive acquisition of land was done by the State and its
instrumentalities that too without complying with the mandate
of the statute. In the said case, the Supreme Court has also
observed that the law is well settled 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, but as per the Supreme Court,
the acquisition proceeding can be challenged even after passing
the award on the grounds of violation of mandatory provisions
and also the mode in which the possession of the land has been
taken. In Raghbir Singh Sehrawat (supra), the acquisition
proceeding was assailed mainly on the grounds that the mode
used by the Authority for taking possession of the land was
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1894 and also that there
was clear violation of the provisions of Section 5-A(2) of the
Act, 1894 as no opportunity was provided to the land owners
for raising their objection or providing them hearing to meet
out their grievance and as such, the Supreme Court has
observed that it was a clear violation of the principle of natural
justice and in such an event, when the State has sufficient land
to fulfill the public purpose or to provide the same to any
private organisation then the State has to use or provide its own
land first and even thereafter, if the need does not fulfill then
only the private land needs to be acquired. Merely because the
Government wants development of infrastructure or
industrialization, acquisition of private land despite having
sufficient Government land, cannot be made. In Raghbir
Singh Sehrawat (supra), the State Government issued a
notification for acquiring the land for development of industrial
section in Sonepat and thereafter, the land owners opposing the
said acquisition proceeding, submitted their objection under
Section 5-A(1) of the Act, 1894 saying that the land is for their
livelihood as the same is being used by them for their
agriculture purpose. The acquisition proceeding was also
challenged on the ground that the notification issued under
Section 4(1) was not as per the requirement of statute, no
opportunity as per Section 5-A(2) was given, land of large
number of persons had been excluded from the acquisition at
the stage of Section 6 declaration and as such, it was clear cut
discrimination on the part of the Authority while acquiring the
land, no notice as per the provision of Section 9(3) and also no
declaration was published as per the requirement of Section
6(3). After finding several irregularities, the Supreme Court has
allowed the appeal of the land owners.
12. On perusal of return filed along with documents, it
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
is clear that the land was acquired for the purpose of
constructing the dam and canals so as to provide water for
irrigation to the land where there is no source of irrigation. The
acquisition proceeding initiated under the provisions of the
Act, 2013 and in that regard a notification under Section 11 of
the Act, 2013 was issued in the State Gazette on 05.10.2018
showing that the land proposed to be acquired including the
land of Village Sumeer, the village where land of the petitioner
situates. Section 11 of the Act, 2013 reads as under:-
"11. Publication of preliminary notification and
power of officers thereupon.-(1) Whenever, it
appears to the appropriate Government that land in
any area is required or likely to be required for any
public purpose, a notification (hereinafter referred
to as preliminary notification) to that effect along
with details of the land to be acquired in rural and
urban areas shall be published in the following
manner, namely:--
(a) in the Official Gazette;
(b) in two daily newspapers circulating in the
locality of such area of which one shall be
in the regional language;
(c) in the local language in the Panchayat,
Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as
the case may be and in the offices of the
District Collector, the Sub-divisional
Magistrate and the Tehsil;
(d) uploaded on the website of the appropriate
Government;
(e) in the affected areas, in such manner as
may be prescribed.
(2) Immediately after issuance of the
notification under sub-section (1), the concerned
Gram Sabha or Sabhas at the village level,
municipalities in case of municipal areas and the
Autonomous Councils in case of the areas referred
to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, shall be
informed of the contents of the notification issued
under the said sub-section in all cases of land
acquisition at a meeting called especially for this
purpose.
(3) The notification issued under sub-section
(1) shall also contain a statement on the nature of
the public purpose involved, reasons necessitating
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
the displacement of affected persons, summary of
the Social Impact Assessment Report and
particulars of the Administrator appointed for the
purposes of rehabilitation and resettlement under
section 43.
(4) No person shall make any transaction or
cause any transaction of land specified in the
preliminary notification or create any encumbrances
on such land from the date of publication of such
notification till such time as the proceedings under
this Chapter are completed:
Provided that the Collector may, on the
application made by the owner of the land so
notified, exempt in special circumstances to be
recorded in writing, such owner from the operation
of this subsection:
Provided further that any loss or injury
suffered by any person due to his wilful violation of
this provision shall not be made up by the Collector.
(5) After issuance of notice under sub-section
(1), the Collector shall, before the issue of a
declaration under section 19, undertake and
complete the exercise of updating of land records as
prescribed within a period of two months."
Perusal of the State Gazette dated 05.10.2018, it is clear
that the notice dated 29.09.2018 under Section 11 of the Act,
2013 was published in the regional language in two daily
newspapers viz 'Deshbandhu and New Rashtra Bhraman'
on 28.12.2018 and 29.12.2018 and the same have been filed by
the respondents in their reply showing that these two
newspapers are in the circulation in the area where the land
owners of the proposed land reside.
13. Although, as per learned counsel for the petitioner
since the aforesaid newspapers are not very renowned,
therefore, the publication for acquisition of the land should not
be considered in consonance with the requirement of Section
11 of the Act, 2013. However, I am not satisfied with the
submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner because
it was not a requirement of the statute that the news should be
published in a renowned newspaper. It is also difficult to
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
determine as in the area where the land situates which
newspaper is in circulation. Sometimes, a newspaper which is
very popular in the urban locality does not have wide
circulation in the rural locality, on the contrary, the newspaper
which does not have proper circulation in urban locality, has
very wide circulation in the rural locality. As per the
respondents, the aforesaid two newspapers are in the wide
circulation where the land owners reside, therefore, the State
has decided to get the notification published in these
newspapers.
Likewise, Annexure-R/2 is a notification issued under
Section 19 of the Act, 2013 which got published in the State
Gazette dated 15.03.2019 and also in two daily newspapers i.e.
'New Rashtra Bhraman and Dainik Bhaskar' and the same
fulfilled the requirement of Section 19. Thereafter, notice dated
28.06.2019 (Annexure-R/3) issued under Section 21 of the Act,
2013 and got published to the individuals including the
petitioner. As per Section 21, it was a notice to an individual
with certain requirements and for the purpose of convenience,
Section 21 is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
"21. Notice to persons interested.-(1) The
Collector shall publish the public notice on his
website and cause public notice to be given at
convenient places on or near the land to be taken,
stating that the Government intends to take
possession of the land, and that claims to
compensations and rehabilitation and resettlement
for all interests in such land may be made to him.
(2) The public notice referred to in sub-section
(1) shall state the particulars of the land so needed,
and require all persons interested in the land to
appear personally or by agent or advocate before the
Collector at a time and place mentioned in the public
notice not being less than thirty days and not more
than six months after the date of publication of the
notice, and to state the nature of their respective
interests in the land and the amount and particulars
of their claims to compensation for such interests,
their claims to rehabilitation and resettlement along
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
with their objections, if any, to the measurements
made under section 20.
(3) The Collector may in any case require such
statement referred to in sub-section (2) to be made in
writing and signed by the party or his agent.
(4) The Collector shall also serve notice to the
same effect on the occupier, if any, of such land and
on all such persons known or believed to be
interested therein, be entitled to act for persons so
interested, as reside or have agents authorised to
receive service on their behalf, within the revenue
district in which the land is situated.
(5) In case any person so interested resides
elsewhere, and has no such agent, the Collector shall
ensure that the notice shall be sent to him by post in
letter addressed to him at his last known residence,
address of place or business and also publish the
same in at least two national daily newspapers and
also on his website."
The respondents have filed the order-sheets to
substantiate that even the land owners of the Village Sumeer
were also appeared before the Authority, participated in the
proceeding and in fact given consent for acquisition of land.
The letters of the officers of the respondent/Department have
also been placed on record to indicate that the land owners
were apprised about the tentative amount of compensation
which is to be awarded in lieu of acquisition of the land and the
villagers had also noted down the said fact and thereafter, the
award was passed on 05.03.2020 (Annexure-P/2). It has also
been stated by the respondents that maximum villagers whose
land acquired, have received the amount of compensation.
However, the petitioner is not satisfied, therefore, he has raised
objection in accepting the amount of compensation. Although,
as per the stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner had
also participated in the proceeding initiated by the respondents
whereby he had been given an opportunity of public hearing.
14. In view of the stand taken by the respondents and
the documents filed thereof, it is clear that the instant case is
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
not in which material illegality has been committed by the
Authority while acquiring the land. It is also not a case in
which the petitioner has taken a stand that the Government
itself has sufficient land for constructing the dam or canals and
the Government should first use its own land and then the land
of the private person should be acquired. In fact, the dam is
constructed after searching the land where maximum water
which comes from the natural sources can be stored and
thereafter, the same can be distributed through canals in
maximum areas with minimum efforts so as to make the
maximum land irrigated. It is the work of skilled team and
technical experts which are the master in their field and after
their decision, the land is identified where the dam can be
constructed. It is not a case where the land has been acquired
for the purpose of industrialization or for any private
organisation, but the land has been acquired by the State for
their own so as to make the agricultural land more fertile. It is a
settled principle of law that in the matter of public policy, the
preference is to be given to the interest of public at large
excluding the interest of an individual.
15. The Supreme Court in the case reported in (1998)
4 SCC 387 [Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and
others] in paragraph 21 has observed as under:-
"21. This Court has repeatedly held that writ petition
challenging the notifications issued under Sections 4
and 6 of the Act is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches if challenge is not made
within a reasonable time. This Court has said that the
petitioner cannot sit on the fence and allow the State
to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis
that notification under Section 4 and the declaration
under Section 6 were valid and then to attack the
notifications on the grounds which were available to
him at the time when these were published as
otherwise it would be putting a premium on dilatory
tactics. Writ petition (SCA No. 5149 of 1989) is thus
barred by laches as well."
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
It is clear form the above enunciation of law that in the
present case, notifications under Sections 11 and 19 were
issued following the mandatory requirements, but even though
the said notifications and the acquisition proceeding were not
assailed by the petitioner in time and he waited till passing the
award and after passing the same, he challenged the award by
filing the writ petition. In such a case, the delay matters and the
writ petition, in my opinion, suffers from delay and laches. It is
also not a case in which the acquisition took place behind the
back of the petitioner or he was not aware of the acquisition
proceeding because the order-sheets filed by the respondents
clearly reveal that the farmers were participating in the
proceeding and not only that number of farmers have already
received the amount of compensation in pursuance to the
award passed in their favour, but only some of the farmers like
the petitioner are still agitating the grievance.
16. The Supreme Court further in the case reported in
(2000) 2 SCC 48 [Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and
another Vs. Shah Hyder Beig and others] in paragraph 14
has held as under:-
"14. The High Court has thus misplaced the factual
details and misread the same. It is now a well-settled
principle of law and we need not dilate on this score
to the effect that while no period of limitation is
fixed but in the normal course of events, the period
the party is required for filing a civil proceeding
ought to be the guiding factor. While it is true that
this extraordinary jurisdiction is available to mitigate
the sufferings of the people in general but it is not
out of place to mention that this extraordinary
jurisdiction has been conferred on to the law courts
under Article 226 of the Constitution on a very sound
equitable principle. Hence, the equitable doctrine,
namely, "delay defeats equity" has its fullest
application in the matter of grant of relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution. The discretionary
relief can be had provided one has not by his act or
conduct given a go-by to his rights. Equity favours a
vigilant rather than an indolent litigant and this being
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
the basic tenet of law, the question of grant of an
order as has been passed in the matter as regards
restoration of possession upon cancellation of the
notification does not and cannot arise. The High
Court as a matter of fact lost sight of the fact that
since the year 1952, the land was specifically
reserved for public purposes of a school playground
and roads in the development plan and by reason
therefor, the notification to acquire the land has,
therefore, been issued under the provisions of the Act
as stated above."
(emphasis supplied)
The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case in
paragraph 17 has also observed that in a matter of acquisition,
if award is passed, writ petition is not maintainable. Paragraph
17 reads thus:-
"17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ
petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice
or against any proceeding thereunder. This has been
the consistent view taken by this Court and in one of
the recent cases (C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt.
of T.N. [(1997) 2 SCC 627]) this Court observed as
below: (SCC p. 628, para 4)
"4. The admitted position is that pursuant to the
notification published under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act')
in GOR No. 1392 Industries dated 17-10-1962,
total extent of 6 acres 41 cents of land in
Madhavaram Village, Saidapet Taluk,
Chengalpattu District in Tamil Nadu was
acquired under Chapter VII of the Act for the
manufacture of Synthetic Rasina by Tvl.
Reichold Chemicals India Ltd., Madras. The
acquisition proceedings had become final and
possession of the land was taken on 30-4-1964.
Pursuant to the agreement executed by the
company, it was handed over to Tvl. Simpson
and General Finance Co. which is a subsidiary
of Reichold Chemicals India Ltd. It would
appear that at a request made by the said
company, 66 cents of land out of one acre 37
cents in respect of which the appellants
originally had ownership, was transferred in
GOMs No. 816 Industries dated 24-3-1971 in
favour of another subsidiary company. Shri
Rama Vilas Service Ltd., the 5th respondent
which is also another subsidiary of the
Company had requested for two acres 75 cents
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
of land; the same came to be assigned on
leasehold basis by the Government after
resumption in terms of the agreement in GOMs
No. 439 Industries dated 10-5-1985. In GOMs
No. 546 Industries dated 30-3-1986, the same
came to be approved of. Then the appellants
challenged the original GOMs No. 1392
Industries dated 17-10-1962 contending that
since the original purpose for which the land
was acquired had ceased to be in operation, the
appellants are entitled to restitution of the
possession taken from them. The learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench have held that
the acquired land having already vested in the
State, after receipt of the compensation by the
predecessor-in-title of the appellants, they have
no right to challenge the notification. Thus the
writ petition and the writ appeal came to be
dismissed."
(emphasis supplied)
17. The Supreme Court in the case reported in (2011)
5 SCC 394 [Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti
Lal Agarwal and others] in paragraphs 15 to 27 has observed
as under:-
"15. The above extracted portions of the plaint
unmistakably show that Respondent 1 had no
complaint against the acquisition of land or
taking of possession by the State Government
and delivery thereof to BDA and the only
prayer made by him was that the defendants be
directed to undertake fresh acquisition
proceedings after sub-dividing Plot No. 795 so
that he may get his share of compensation. He
filed writ petition questioning the acquisition
proceedings after almost 9 years of publication
of the declaration issued under Section 6(1) and
about six years of the pronouncement of award
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. During
this interregnum, BDA took possession of the
acquired land after depositing 80% of the
compensation in terms of Section 17(3-A),
prepared the layout, developed the acquired
land, carved out plots, constructed flats for
economically weaker sections of the society,
invited applications and allotted plots and flats
to the eligible persons belonging to
economically weaker sections as also LIG,
MIG and HIG categories. Unfortunately, the
High Court ignored all this and allowed the writ
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
petition on the specious ground that the
acquired land did not vest in the State
Government because physical possession of the
land belonging to Respondent 1 was not taken
till 31-7-2002 and the award was not passed
within two years as per the mandate of Section
11-A.
16. In our view, even if the objection of delay
and laches had not been raised in the affidavits
filed on behalf of BDA and the State
Government, the High Court was duty-bound to
take cognizance of the long time gap of nine
years between the issue of declaration under
Section 6(1) and filing of the writ petition, and
declined relief to Respondent 1 on the ground
that he was guilty of laches because the
acquired land had been utilised for
implementing the residential scheme and third-
party rights had been created. The unexplained
delay of about six years between the passing of
award and filing of the writ petition was also
sufficient for refusing to entertain the prayer
made in the writ petition.
17. It is true that no limitation has been
prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226
of the Constitution but one of the several rules
of self-imposed restraint evolved by the
superior courts is that the High Court will not
entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time
because that may adversely affect the
settled/crystallised rights of the parties. If the
writ petition is filed beyond the period of
limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for
similar cause, the High Court will treat the
delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the
grievance of the petitioner on merits.
18. In State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964
SC 1006] the Constitution Bench considered
the effect of delay in filing writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution and held: (AIR
pp. 1011-12, paras 17 & 21)
"17. ... It has been made clear more
than once that the power to give relief
under Article 226 is a discretionary
power. This is specially true in the case
of power to issue writs in the nature of
mandamus. Among the several matters
which the High Courts rightly take into
consideration in the exercise of that
discretion is the delay made by the
aggrieved party in seeking this special
remedy and what excuse there is for it.
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
... It is not easy nor is it desirable to lay
down any rule for universal application.
It may however be stated as a general
rule that if there has been unreasonable
delay the court ought not ordinarily to
lend its aid to a party by this
extraordinary remedy of mandamus.
* * *
21. ... The learned counsel is right in
his submission that the provisions of the
Limitation Act do not as such apply to
the granting of relief under Article 226.
It appears to us however that the
maximum period fixed by the
legislature as the time within which the
relief by a suit in a civil court must be
brought may ordinarily be taken to be a
reasonable standard by which delay in
seeking remedy under Article 226 can
be measured. This Court may consider
the delay unreasonable even if it is less
than the period of limitation prescribed
for a civil action for the remedy but
where the delay is more than this
period, it will almost always be proper
for the court to hold that it is
unreasonable."
19. In matters involving challenge to the
acquisition of land for public purpose, this
Court has consistently held that delay in filing
the writ petition should be viewed seriously and
relief denied to the petitioner if he fails to offer
plausible explanation for the delay. The Court
has also held that the delay of even few years
would be fatal to the cause of the petitioner, if
the acquired land has been partly or wholly
utilised for the public purpose.
20. In Ajodhya Bhagat v. State of Bihar [(1974)
2 SCC 501] this Court approved dismissal by
the High Court of the writ petition filed by the
appellant for quashing the acquisition of his
land and observed: (SCC p. 506, para 23)
"23. The High Court held that the
appellants were guilty of delay and
laches. The High Court relied on two
important facts. First, that there was
delivery of possession. The appellants
alleged that it was a paper transaction.
The High Court rightly rejected that
contention. Secondly, the High Court
said that the Trust invested several lakhs
of rupees for the construction of roads
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
and material for development purposes.
The appellants were in full knowledge of
the same. The appellants did not take
any steps. The High Court rightly said
that to allow this type of challenge to an
acquisition of large block of land
piecemeal by the owners of some of the
plots in succession would not be proper.
If this type of challenge is encouraged
the various owners of small plots will
come up with writ petitions and hold up
the acquisition proceedings for more
than a generation. The High Court
rightly exercised discretion against the
appellants. We do not see any reason to
take a contrary view to the discretion
exercised by the High Court."
(emphasis supplied)
21. In State of Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi [(1996)
6 SCC 445] this Court referred to
Administrative Law by H.W.R. Wade (7th
Edn.) at pp. 342-43 and observed: (SCC p. 453,
para 10)
"10. The order or action, if ultra vires the
power, becomes void and it does not
confer any right. But the action need not
necessarily be set at naught in all events.
Though the 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 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."
22. In Girdharan Prasad Missir v. State of Bihar
[(1980) 2 SCC 83], the delay of 17 months was
considered as a good ground for declining relief
to the petitioner. In Municipal Corpn. of Greater
Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment
Co. (P) Ltd. [(1996) 11 SCC 501] this Court
held: (SCC p. 452, para 9)
"9. ... It is 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
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
become final, the Court should be loathe
to quash the notifications. The High
Court has, no doubt, discretionary
powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution to quash the notification
under Section 4(1) and declaration under
Section 6. But it should be exercised
taking all relevant factors into pragmatic
consideration. When the award was
passed and possession was taken, the
Court should not have exercised its
power to quash the award which is a
material factor to be taken into
consideration before exercising the
power under Article 226. The fact that
no third-party rights were created in the
case, is hardly a ground for interference.
The Division Bench of the High Court
was not right in interfering with the
discretion exercised by the learned
Single Judge dismissing the writ petition
on the ground of laches."
23. In Urban Improvement Trust v. Bheru Lal
[(2002) 7 SCC 712] this Court reversed the order
of the Rajasthan High Court and held that the
writ petition filed for quashing of acquisition of
land for a residential scheme framed by the
appellant Urban Improvement Trust was liable to
be dismissed on the ground that the same was
filed after two years.
24. In Ganpatibai v. State of M.P. [(2006) 7 SCC
508], the delay of 5 years was considered
unreasonable and the order passed by the High
Court refusing to entertain the writ petition was
confirmed. In that case also the petitioner had
initially filed a suit challenging the acquisition of
land. The suit was dismissed in 2001. Thereafter,
the writ petition was filed. This Court referred to
an earlier judgment in State of Bihar v. Dhirendra
Kumar [(1995) 4 SCC 229] and observed:
(Ganpatibai case [(2006) 7 SCC 508] , SCC p.
510, para 9)
"9. In State of Bihar v. Dhirendra
Kumar [(1995) 4 SCC 229] this Court
had observed that the civil suit was not
maintainable and the remedy to
question notification under Section 4
and the declaration under Section 6 of
the Act was by filing a writ petition.
Even thereafter the appellant, as noted
above, pursued the suit in the civil
court. The stand that five years after the
filing of the suit, the decision was
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
rendered does not in any way help the
appellant. Even after the decision of this
Court, the appellant continued to
prosecute the suit till 2001, when the
decision of this Court in 1995 had held
that suit was not maintainable."
25. In Sawaran Lata v. State of Haryana [(2010) 4
SCC 532 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 220] the dismissal
of writ petition filed after seven years of the
publication of declaration and five years of the
award passed by the Collector was upheld by the
Court and it was observed: (SCC p. 535, para 11)
"11. In the instant case, it is not the case
of the petitioners that they had not been
aware of the 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 the 1894
Act had been published in the
newspapers 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 the acquisition proceedings for the
reason that a very huge chunk of land
belonging to a large number of tenure-
holders had been notified for acquisition.
Therefore, it should have been the talk of
the town. Thus, it cannot be presumed
that the petitioners could not have
knowledge of the acquisition
proceedings."
26. In the instant case, the acquired land was
utilised for implementing Tulsi Nagar Residential
Scheme inasmuch as after carrying out necessary
development i.e. construction of roads, laying
electricity, water and sewer lines, etc. BDA
carved out plots, constructed flats for
economically weaker sections and lower income
group, invited applications for allotment of the
plots and flats from general as well as reserved
categories and allotted the same to eligible
persons. In the process, BDA not only incurred
huge expenditure but also created third-party
rights. In this scenario, the delay of nine years
from the date of publication of the declaration
issued under Section 6(1) and almost six years
from the date of passing of award should have
been treated by the High Court as more than
sufficient for denying equitable relief to
Respondent 1.
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
27. The two judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for Respondent 1 are not helpful to the
cause of his client. In Vyalikaval Housebuilding
Coop. Society v. V. Chandrappa [(2007) 9 SCC
304] this Court held that where the acquisition
was found to be vitiated by fraud and mala fide,
the delay in filing the writ petition cannot be
made a ground for denying relief to the affected
person. In Babu Ram v. State of Haryana [(2009)
10 SCC 115 : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 69] this Court
held that the appellant cannot be denied relief
merely because there was some delay in filing the
writ petition. The facts of that case were that 34
kanals 2 marlas of land situated at Jind (Haryana)
was acquired by the State Government under
Section 4 read with Sections 17(2)(c) and 17(4)
for construction of sewage treatment plant.
Notification under Section 4 was issued on 23-
11-2005 and declaration under Section 6 was
issued on 2-1-2006. Mitaso Educational Society,
Narwana, filed a suit for injuncting the State from
constructing the sewage treatment plant in front
of the school. On 15-2-2006, the trial court
passed an order of injunction. In another suit filed
by one Jagroop similar order was passed by the
trial court. After some time, the appellant filed
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Before this Court it was argued that
relief should be denied to the appellant because
there was delay in filing the writ petition.
Rejecting this argument, the Court observed:
(Babu Ram case [(2009) 10 SCC 115 : (2009) 4
SCC (Civ) 69] , SCC p. 122, para 32)
"32. Since Section 5-A of the LA Act
had been dispensed with, the stage under
Section 9 was arrived at within six
months from the date of the notice
issued under Sections 4 and 17(2)(c) of
the LA Act. While such notice was
issued on 23-11-2005, the award under
Section 11 was made on 23-5-2006.
During this period, the appellants filed a
suit and thereafter, withdrew the same
and filed a writ petition in an attempt to
protect their constitutional right to the
property. It cannot, therefore, be said
that there was either any negligence or
lapse or delay on the part of the
appellants.""
18. From the view expressed by the Supreme Court in
the aforesaid cases, it is clear that when there is an
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
unexplanatory delay, the writ petition cannot be entertained.
Here in this case, the petitioner has challenged the acquisition
proceeding after lapse of almost three years from initiation of
the said proceeding that too after passing the award by the
Land Acquisition Officer on a very vague submission that the
notification for initiation of the land acquisition proceeding
was published in the newspapers which are not very renowned
in the locality, but that stands does not survive for the reason
that the newspapers like Deshbandhu, New Rashtra Bhraman
and Dainik Bhaskar cannot be said to be the newspapers not in
circulation or not known to the public. Even thereafter, the
order-sheets filed by the respondents indicate the signatures of
the farmers and even of the petitioner who took part in the
proceeding, received the awarded amount, but not challenged
the action of the Authority. As per the facts and stand taken by
the respondents/State, the purpose for acquiring the land is
nothing but a proposed scheme over Sunar river with an
estimated cost of Rs.518.09 Crores for which the land of the
Government area measuring 514.80 hectares is used and the
land of the individuals to the extent of 286.189 hectares has
been acquired and out of the said scheme, the expected area of
the land to be irrigated and benefited would be 16200 hectares
by Micro Irrigation Pressurized Pipe System. Thus, it is clear
that it is not a case in which the Government is acquiring the
land of the individuals and the land of Government despite
availability is not being used whereas maximum area of the
Government land is being utilized. It is also clear from the
aforesaid that only on the Government land, the scheme as has
been proposed cannot be implemented, therefore, the land of
the individuals is also proposed to be acquired. Hence, the case
of Raghbir Singh Sehrawat (supra) on which learned counsel
for the petitioner has placed reliance is not applicable in the
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
present case.
19. The Supreme Court in the case reported in (1997)
1 SCC 134 [Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others] while cautioning the High Courts in
interfering with the land acquisition proceedings in
paragraph-10 of its judgment has observed as under:-
"10......Our country is now launched upon an
ambitious programme of all-round economic
advancement to make our economy competitive in
the world market. We are anxious to attract
foreign direct investment to the maximum extent.
We propose to compete with China economically.
We wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by
some of the Asian countries, referred to as "Asian
tigers", e.g., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore.
It is, however, recognised on all hands that the
infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace
of progress is woefully lacking in our country. The
means of transportation, power and
communications are in dire need of substantial
improvement, expansion and modernisation.
These things very often call for acquisition of land
and that too without any delay. It is, however,
natural that in most of these cases, the persons
affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in
courts. These challenges are generally in the shape
of writ petitions filed in High Courts. Invariably,
stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases,
orders by way of stay or injunction are also made.
Whatever may have been the practices in the past,
a time has come where the courts should keep the
larger public interest in mind while exercising
their power of granting stay/injunction. The power
under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be
exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice
and not merely on the making out of a legal point.
And in the matter of land acquisition for public
purposes, the interests of justice and the public
interest coalesce....."
The Supreme Court in a case reported in (2004) 6 SCC
765 [Hira Tikko Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and
others] explaining the scope of principle of legitimate
expectation has held that the doctrine cannot be pressed into
service where the public interest is likely to suffer as against
the personal interest of a party. The Supreme Court further in
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
the case reported in (2004) 6 SCC 733 [Friends Colony
Development committee Vs. State of Orissa] has held that the
private interest would stand subordinate to the public good. In
the case at hand, over the acquired land, the respondents have
completed their project by 60% to 70%, invested huge amount
of money which is ultimately the public money and if the
proceeding challenged by filing the writ petition after such a
long delay is entertained and award is quashed to protect the
interest of an individual who is otherwise not entitled to get
any equity of law that would amount to great injustice with the
public at large.
20. The Supreme Court, in fact, has observed that
challenging the acquisition proceeding by filing the writ
petition even with the delay of few months is fatal and the
same cannot be entertained. However, the petitioner has
disclosed in his petition that except the land acquired, he has
no other land, but in lieu of the acquired land, an adequate
amount of compensation has been determined and paid to the
some of the land owners. The award was passed on 05.03.2020
and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the quantum of the
compensation awarded, he has a remedy to challenge the award
by filing a reference and the amount of award can also be
enhanced by the competent Court.
21. Thus, I am not satisfied with the submissions made
by learned counsel for the petitioner that for raising the
grievance against the acquisition proceeding, writ petition can
be entertained even ignoring the ground of delay and laches
because there were material irregularities and the mandatory
requirements have also not been followed, for the reason that
the respondents by filing reply along with the documents have
substantiated that the mandatory requirements have not been
violated and the acquisition proceeding has been completed
Writ Petition No.4633/2021 & other connected petitions
after following due procedure of law and as such, the petitions
filed by the petitioners suffer from delay and laches. The
petitions are also not maintainable on the ground that the same
have been filed after passing the award.
22. Ex consequentia, the petitions filed by the
petitioners stand dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Devashish
DEVASHISH MISHRA
2021.09.23 10:11:55
+05'30'
