[Cites 29, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Delhi Catholic Archdiocese Through Its ... vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 December, 2025

Author: Deepak Sibal

Bench: Deepak Sibal

CWP No.25397 of 2024 (O&M)



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH

                                               CWP NO.25397 OF 2024 (O&M)


Delhi Catholic Archdiocese through its Secretary                ...Petitioner
            Versus
State of Haryana and others                                     ...Respondents


1.    The date when the judgment is reserved                      12.11.2025
2.    The date when the judgment is pronounced                    02.12.2025
3.    The date when the judgment is uploaded                      02.12.2025
4.    Whether only operative part of the judgment is              Full
      pronounced or whether the full judgment is
      pronounced
5.    The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full              Not applicable
      judgment, and reasons thereof


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present :    Mr. Umang Bansal, Advocate and
             Mr. Shivansh Gulati, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

The prayer in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227

of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for setting-

aside of Award No.8 dated March 23, 1993 (Annexure P P-1) passed by the

Land Acquisition Collector (LAC),, Urban Estates, Gurugram. The

petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ for Mandamus for de-

notifying the land in dispute under Scheme No.45 (A (Annexure P-6) of

Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and for restoring the title

1 of 18

of the petitioner by entering its name in the revenue records in place of

HUDA.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

i) The petitioner is a registered soci society which was the owner of

land ad measuring 04 kanals 04 marlas (i.e 0.52 acres or 22868 sq. ft.) in

Khasra No.39/13 and 14/1 situated at village Kanhei, Tehsil and District

Gurugram.

ii) The petitioner purchased the land in dispute vide registered

sale deed dated June 07, 1963 from Chattar Singh, Maan Singh Pisran and

Chankaur r/o village Kanhei, District Gurgaon. The sale deed was duly

executed at the office of Joint Sub-Registrar, Sub Registrar, Gurgao Gurgaon vide No.440 dated

June 07, 1963.

iii) Pursuant to the said purchase, the name of the petitioner

society through its President was entered into the revenue records vide

Mutation No.1218 dated March 23, 1993 reflected in the Jamabandi for the

year 2004-2005.

2005.

iv) The disputed land was acquired by the State for the proposed

development of Sector-45, Sector 45, Gurugram by HUDA. The impugned Award

No.8 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short "LAC"),

Urban Estates, Gurugram, Gurugram Haryana on March 23, 1993 1993. A primary Health

Care Centre and a Church had already been constructed over the disputed

land at the time of acquisition of the same.


v)           The petitioner filed a representation dated February 27, 2023

before respondent No.3-The
                  No.3     Estate Officer-II,
                                          II, HUDA, Gurugram, to de-




                                     2 of 18

notify the disputed land under Scheme No.45 floated by HUDA but the

representation was not responded to.

vi) The petitioner again submitted a reminder letter dated

December 04, 2023 to respondent No.3 but the prayer of petitioner went

unheeded.

vii) Due to the inaction on the part of respondent authorities the

petitioner has claimed that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under

Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in La Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred

to as "the 2013 Act") Act as neither the physical possession of the land had been

taken by the State authorities nor was any compensation paid to it.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Mr. Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner society submits that no notice of the Award as required under

Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as

"the 1894 Act") was given to the petitioner society society, resulting in lapsing of

the impugned Award dated March 23, 1993. Furthermore, neither the

physical possession of the disputed land was taken by the State nor was any

compensation paid by the State to the petitioner.

4. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that

the despite passage of 31 years from the date of acquisition acquisition, the public

purpose for which the land had been acquired, remained unfulfilled. The

land still remains vacant/unutilised and the he peaceful possession of the same

is still with the petitioner society upon which it had const constructed a primary

health centre and a church, prior to commencement of the acquisition

3 of 18

proceedings. Therefore, it is contended that due to non non-utilisation of the

land coupled with the petitioner being in possession of the same for 31

years, the proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of

the 2013 Act. Therefore, the disputed land should be released/de released/de-notified

and the mutation entries should be rectified to substitute the name of the

petitioner in place and stead of HUDA.

5. Mr. Mago, learned DAG, Haryana, appearing for the State on

advance notice, filed a status report which was taken on record on

September 04, 2025. Relying on the said status report, he submits that the

petition ought ght to be dismissed in limine as the same has been filed after an

inordinate delay of 31 years from the date of passing of the Award on

March 23, 1993. He further submits that notification dated April 20, 1990

under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued for acquiring land ad measuring

1148.91 acres in village Kanhei, Tehsil and District Gurugram. Declaration

dated April 18, 1991 was issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act for

acquiring 1068.64 acres of land which was followed by Award No.8 dated

March 23, 1993 announcing compensation in respect of 948.95 acres of

land. The disputed land of the petitioner socie society was acquired for public

purpose of constructing residential, commercial, institutional and constructing

recreational (open space) area in Gurugram Sectors 44 to 46.

6. After issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act,

objections under Section 5-A 5 of the 1894 Act were invited from all affected

land owners. No objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner-society

under Section 5-A 5 A and therefore, the challenge to the acquisition

proceedings is not maintainable. He relies on the judgment of Hon'ble

4 of 18

Supreme reme Court "Delhi Delhi Administration v. Gurdeep Singh U Urban and

others"" reported in AIR 1999 SC 3822,, to contend that once objections

under Section 5-A 5 of the 1894 Act have not been filed by the land owners

they could not be permitted to contend that the declaration under Section 6

of the 1894 Act must be struck down or that the acquisition proceedings

have lapsed due to the Award not being brought to the knowledge of the

landowners.

7. The entire amount of compensation compensation under Award No.8 of 1993

was duly tendered in the LAC Office at the time of announcing of the

Award. Since the petitioner did not come forward to receive the

compensation amount to the tune of Rs.86,676.75/ Rs.86,676.75/- the same had to be

deposited before learned l ADJ Court which was done vide Memo No.8028

dated December 08, 2022. Furthermore, the possession of the land was

taken by the State by drawing up of Memorandum of Possession/ Possession/Rapat

Roznamcha No.425 dated March 23, 1993 and the disputed land was

handed over to the authorised representative of Haryana Shehri Vikas

Pradhikaran (HSVP) on the very same day day. Therefore, the acquisition

proceedings stood complete in all respects and the land st stood vested in the

beneficiary department of the State i.e HSVP.

8. Referring to the approved layout plan, it is submitted on behalf

of the State that the land stands utilised as nine plots of 02 marlas, 01 green,

01 park, 01 nursery school site, 01 R.B site, 01 hospital site and 03 of 10

metre wide road, are proposed to be constructed on the acquired land.

Therefore, there was no question of lapsing of the acquisition proceedings

under nder Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment of

5 of 18

"Indore Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal and others" reported in

(2020) 8 SCC 129, 129 to submit that no prayer on the petitioner's behalf under

Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act is maintainable as not only the possession of

the land was taken by drawing of the Rapat Roznamcha on March 23, 1993,

but also thee entire awarded compensation was tendered to the LAC at the

time of passing of the Award.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material on record.

10. The petitioner without challenging the notification under

Section 4 of the 1894 Act dated April 20, 1990 and the declaration dated

April 18, 1991, issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act has sought to

challenge only the Award dated March 23, 1993 passed under the said Act

by filing the instant writ writ petition in the year 2024. It is significant to note

that no objection under Section 5-A 5 A of the 1894 Act was filed by the

petitioner. For or the first time in 2023, it made a representation before the

authorities for release of its land i.e after 30 years of the passing of the

Award. Thereafter, Thereafter the petitioner has approached this Court 31 years after

the passing of the Award dated March 23, 1993 without providing any

explanation whatsoever, as to the reason for the said delay in approaching

the Court. Moreover, More during the course of arguments also, no explanation

whatsoever was provided for such a belated approach in challenging the

acquisition proceedings.

proceedings

11. Given the conduct/lackadaisical lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner, this

Court is of the firm view that instant writ petition is hit by the principles of

6 of 18

delay, acquiescence and laches.

laches. 31 years of delay in approaching the Court

seeking de-notification/release notification/release of the disputed land and consequent

mutation reflecting the name of petitioner in the ownership column column, is fatal

to the prayer of the petitioner.

12. The concepts of delay, laches and acquiescence has been

succinctly explained by the Apex Court in Union of India v. N.

Murugesan,, reported in (2022) 2 SCC 24.. The relevant extract thereof is

reproduced hereinafter:

"xxx

Delay, laches and acquiescence

20. The principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence

are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, bu but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify that these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create non non-

consideration of condonation in certain circumstances. They are bound to be applied by way of practice requiring prudence of the court than of a strict application of law. The underlying principle governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an important issue to be tak taken no of by the Court.

note

Laches

21. The word "laches" is derived from the French language meaning "remissness "remissness and slackness slackness". It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy.

22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated,

7 of 18

it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the court. Thus Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a remedy.

23. A defence of laches can only be allowed when there is no statutory bar. The question as to whether there exists a clear case of laches on the part of a per person seeking a remedy is one of fact and so also that of prejudice. The said principle may not have any application when the existence of fraud is pleaded and proved by the other side. To determine the difference between the concept of laches and acquiescen acquiescence is that, in a case involving mere laches, the principle of estoppel would apply to all the defences that are available to a party. Therefore, a defendant can succeed on the various grounds raised by the plaintiff, while an issue concerned alone would be amenable to acquiescence.

Acquiescence

24. We have already discussed the relationship between acquiescence on the one hand and delay and laches on the other.

25. Acquiescence would mean a tacit or passive acceptance. It is implied and reluctant consent to an act. In other words, such an action would qualify a passive assent. Thus, when acquiescence takes place, it presupposes knowledge against a particular act. From the knowledge comes passive acceptance, therefore instead of taking any action ag against any alleged refusal to perform the original contract, despite adequate knowledge of its terms, and instead being allowed to continue by consciously ignoring it and thereafter proceeding further, acquiescence does take place. As a consequence, it reintroduces a new implied agreement between the parties. reintroduces Once such a situation arises, it is not open to the party that acquiesced itself to insist upon the compliance of the original terms. Hence, what is essential, is the conduct of the parties. We only dealt dealt with the distinction involving a mere acquiescence. When acquiescence is followed by delay, it may become laches. Here again, we are inclined to hold that the concept of acquiescence is to be seen on a case case-to-case basis.

xxx"

8 of 18

13. In Brijesh Kumar andd others v. State of Haryana and Others Others,

SLP (Civil) No.6609-13 No.6609 of 2014 reported in (2014) 11 SCC 351, the

petitioners challenged the awarded compensation under Section 18 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after a period of 10 years, 02 Months and 29

days.. The High Court had refused to condone the delay in spite of the fact

that the other land owners, who had preferred the appeals in time, were

granted higher compensation. While dismissing the appeal, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court made the following observations:

observations:

"xxx

7. The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, relied upon the writings of Mr Mitra in Tagore Law Lectures, 1932 wherein it has been said that:

A law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on equitable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone ostpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognized by law.

Xxx

11. It is also a well-settled settled principle of law that if some person has taken a relief approaching the court just or immediately after the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take benefit thereof approaching the court at a belated stage for the reason that they cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person.

12. In State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya this court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that he filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay delay and laches. The Court observed that such

9 of 18

a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches.

laches

xxx"

[Emphasis supplied]

14. In Mewa Ram (deceased) by his LRs and others v. State of

Haryana through the Land Acquisition Gurgaon, reported in Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon

1986 (4) SCC 151, 151, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave

Petitions on the ground that the petitioners could not plead their own

laches, as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. It held that the

time stipulated for re-determination re determination of the awarded compensation under

Section 28-A A should be adhered to, as any other view taken by the Courts

would lead to disastrous consequences, not intended by the legislature.

Therefore, the following conclusion was arrived at:

"xxx

7. There is no reason for us to grant special leave in these cases which are hopelessly barred by time and there is no justification for condonation of inordinate delay.

8. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed with costs."

cost

15. In a recent judgment passed in Union of India and another v.

Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) SLP (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019 reported

in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489 , the Hon'ble Apex Court refused to condone

the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing filing of the restoration application

before the High Court. The High Court had refused to entertain an

application filed by the appellants for exercise of its jurisdiction under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India for condoning the delay of 12

10 of 18

years and 158 58 days, when the same was dismissed for non non-prosecution.

The Apex Court categorically made the following findings:

findings:-

"xxx

24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very clear that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay.

25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned.

condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay ofo 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings.

26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate non deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferre preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party see seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.

27. We are of the view ew that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging

11 of 18

over the head of the respondent respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.

xxx"

16. From the aforesaid exposition of law, it is clear that this

petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone but at the

insistence of the learned counsell for the petitioner the same is considered on

merits as well. Even on merits, the claim of the petitioner cannot be

entertained as the law is now well settled by the Constitution Bench

judgment in Indore Development's Development case (supra). It is unambiguously held

by the said judgment that once the possession had been taken over by the

State by drawing up of Rapat Roznamcha/Memorandum /Memorandum of Possession, it

would amount to taking of physical possession by the State and the land

would ould completely vest in the State, free from all encumbrances. After

vesting, the State becomes the absolute owner of the land and no contention

with regard to non-utilisation non utilisation of the land for challenging the title of the

State can be entertained. The owner ceases to have control over the land and

retention of possession of the disputed land by him would only be in the

capacity of a trespasser.

17. Relevant extract from the Indore Development's case (supra)

is reproduced herein below:

"xxx

245. The expression used in Section 24(1)( 24(1)(b) is "where an award under Section 11 has been made made", then "such proceedings shall continue"

continue" under the provisions of the said 1894 Act as if the said Act has not been repealed. The expression "proceedings shall continue" indicates that proceedings are pending at the time; it is a present perfect tense and envisages that proceedings must be pendi pending as on the date on which the 2013 Act came into force. It does not

12 of 18

apply to concluded proceedings before the Collector after which it becomes functus officio. Section 24 of the 2013 Act, does not confer benefit in the concluded proceedings, of which legality if questioned has to be seen in the appropriate legality proceedings. It is only in the pending proceedings where award has been passed and possession has not been taken nor compensation has been paid, it is applicable. There is no lapse in case possession has been taken, but amount has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings in a pending proceeding, higher compensation under the 2013 Act would follow under the proviso to Section 24(2). Thus, the provision is not applicable to any other case in which higher compensation has been sought by way of seeking a reference under the 1894 Act or where the validity of the acquisition proceedings have been questioned, though they have been concluded. Such case has to be decided on their own merits and the the provisions of Section 24(2) are not applicable to such cases.

246. Section 16 of the 1894 Act provided that possession of land may be taken by the State Government after passing of an award and thereupon land vest free from all encumbrances in the State Government. Similar are the provisions made in the case of urgency in Section 17(1). The word "possession" has been used in the 1894 Act, whereas in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the expression "physical possession" is used. It is submitted that drawing dra of panchnama for taking over the possession is not enough when the actual physical possession remained with the landowner and Section 24(2) requires actual physical possession to be taken, not the possession in any other form. When the State has acquired acquired the land and award has been passed, land vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The act of vesting of the land in the State is with possession, any person retaining the possession, thereafter, has to be treated as trespasser and has no right to possess the land which vests in the State free from all encumbrances.

Xxx

274. It was submitted on behalf of landowners that under Section 24 the expression used is not possession but physical possession. In our opinion, under the 1894 Act w when possession is taken after award is passed under Section 16 or under Section 17 before the passing of the award, land absolutely vests in the State on drawing of panchnama of taking possession, which is the mode of taking possession. Thereafter, any re-entry re entry in possession or retaining the possession is wholly illegal and trespasser's possession inures

13 of 18

for the benefit of the owner and even in the case of open land, possession is deemed to be that of the owner. When the land is vacant and is lying open, it it is presumed to be that of the owner by this Court as held in Kashi Bai v. Sudha Rani Ghose [AIR 1958 SC 434].

434] Mere re-entry entry on government land once it is acquired and vests absolutely in the State (under the 1894 Act) does not confer any right to it and Section 24(2) does not have the effect of divesting the land once it vests in the State State.

Xxx

277. In V.Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer, the land was acquired and possession was handed over to the authorities. Later on the land was sold, documents were manipulated, and flats were constructed in an illegal manner. It was held that the land once acqacquired, cannot be restored. The State has no right to reconvey the land and no person can claim such a right nor derive an advantage. Sale of land after a notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was held to be void. It was held in the facts of the case tthat the judicial process cannot be used to subvert its way. Such persons must not be permitted to profit from the frivolous litigation, and they must be prevented from taking false pleas from relying on forged documents or illegal action."

[Emphasis Supplied]

18. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that

since he is still in physical possession of the acquired land the same should

be de-notified, notified, is frivolous and devoid of any merit merit. Furthermore, this Court

is of the opinion that once the amount of compensation is tendered tendered,

meaning thereby the amount is made available to the land owners for their

collection, the State's obligation to make payment stands discharged. The

land owners cannot be forced to receive the tendered amount and in case

they have not accepted the same they cannot be allowed to take advantage

of their own inaction.

19. The view of this Court finds support in Indore Development's

case (supra) and the relevant extract is reproduced hereinafter:

14 of 18

"xxx

206. It was submitted that mere tender of amount is not payment. The amount has to be actually paid. In our opinion, when amount has been tendered, the obligation has been fulfilled by the Collector. Landowners cannot be forced to receive it. In case a person person has not accepted the amount wants to take the advantage of non-payment, non payment, though the amount has remained due to his own act. It is not open to him to contend that amount has not been paid to him, as such, there should be lapse of the proceedings. Even iin a case when offer for payment has been made but not deposited, liability to pay amount along with interest subsist and if not deposited for majority of holding, for that adequate provisions have been given in the proviso also to Section 24 (2). The sche scheme of the Act of 2013 in Sections 77 and 80 is also the same as that provided in Sections 31 and 34 of the Act of 1894.

xxx xxx"

20. A perusal of the status report would reveal that the total

amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.86,676.75 payable to the

petitioner was duly tendered and readily made available for disbursement to

the petitioner.. However, the petitioner deliberately chose not to receive the

said amount. Out of the total awarded amount of Rs.12,27,47,937.60/- for

the entirety of the acquired land, land, an amount of Rs.

Rs.11,20,50,371.55/- has

already been disbursed to the land owners who had come forward to collect

the compensation amount. The balance amount of compensation is ready

for disbursement but the landowners cannot be forced to receive it it.

21. A perusal of the status report also indicates that the notification

under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was published in Haryana government's

official gazette and two daily newspapers "The Tribune (English)" and

"Nav Bharat rat Times (Hindi)" on November 14, 1992. Once the declaration

is published in the official gazette, the same is presumed to be notice to the

public at large. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that it was

15 of 18

unaware of the notification along with the Award dated March 23, 1993, is

bereft of any merit. A beneficial reference may be made to the Apex

Court's judgment in 'Special Special Deputy Collector Collector, Land Acquisition, CMDA

others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 330. Relevant v. J. Sivaprakasam and others'

extract thereof is reproduced hereinafter:

"xxx xxx

21. The purpose of publication of the notification is twofold:

First is to ensure that adequate publicity is given so that the landowners and persons interested will have an opportunity to file their objections under Section 55-A of the Act. Second is to put the landowners/occupants on notice that government officers will be entering upon the property for carrying on the activities enumerated in Section 4(2) of the Act. Section 4(1), before its amendment in 1984, requir required publication of the preliminary notification only in the Official Gazette and public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality.

22. This Court, in M.P. Housing Board v. Mohd.

Shafi [(1992) 2 SCC 168] explained the object of issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act thus:

"8.. ... The object of issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act is twofold. First, it is a public announcement by the Government and a public notice by the Collector to the effect that the land, as specified therein, is needed or is likely to be needed by the Government for the 'public purpose' mentioned therein; and secondly, it authorises the departmental officers or officers of the local authority, as the case may be to do all such acts as are mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Act. The notification has has to be published in the locality and particularly persons likely to be affected by the proposal have to be put on notice that such an activity is afoot. The notification is, thus, required to give with sufficient clarity not only the 'public purpose' for which the acquisition proceedings are being commenced but also the 'locality' where the land is situate with as full a description as possible of the land proposed to be acquired to enable the 'interested' persons to know as to which land is being acquired and for what purpose and to take further steps under the Act by filing objections, etc. since it is open to such persons to canvass the nonnon-suitability of the land for the alleged 'public purpose' also. If a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is defective defective and does not comply with the requirements of the Act, it not only vitiates the notification,

16 of 18

but also renders all subsequent proceedings connected with the acquisition, bad."

23. By Amendment Act 68 of 1984, Section 4(1) was amended introducing the additional requirement relating to publication of the notification in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality. The purpose of requiring such newspaper publication is to give as wide a publicity to the notification as possible, as the State Gaz Gazettes do not have a wide circulation and causing public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality would give notice only in specific pockets in the locality. The legislature therefore provided for publication in two nnewspapers (of which at least one being in the regional language) to have a wider reach. Having regard to the object and purpose of the provision, it is evident that publication should be in newspapers which have a reasonably good circulation in the locality. If the publication is to be made in obscure newspapers locality.

having only token or insignificant circulation, either to cut the cost of publication or by way of political or official patronage, that will defeat the very purpose of providing for publication in newspapers.

xxx"

No attempt has been made to explain the reason for non non-filing

of objections under Section 5-A 5 A of the 1894 Act. Neither any allegation

with regard to the aforesaid two newspapers not having wide circulation has

been brought on record. Therefore, the argument with regard to lack of

knowledge of the acquisition proceedings of the petitioner cannot be

accepted.

22. Pursuant to the above mentioned discussion, this Court has no

hesitation to hold that the present writ petition is a frivolo frivolous attempt to seek

de-notification/release notification/release of the land acquired as far as 31 years back, without

providing any explanation whatsoever as to the reason for such inordinate

delay in approaching the Court.

17 of 18

23. Accordingly, the writ petition, being CWP No.25397 of 2024

is dismissed,, not only being hit by the principles of delay, acquiescence

and laches but also on merits as the land after being completely vested in

State was handed over by the State to HSVP and sstands utilised as on date,

in terms of the approved layout plan.

24. Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of

accordingly.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)                                   (LAPITA BANERJI)
    JUDGE                                             JUDGE


DECEMBER 02, 2025
shalini


Whether speaking/reasoned:         Yes/No
Whether reportable:                Yes/No





                                     18 of 18