Swaran Lata v. State of Haryana (SC) BS209274
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- B.S. Chauhan and J.M. Panchal, JJ.

SLP (Civil) Nos. 11023-11026 of 2010 (Arising out of CC Nos. 4610- 4613/2010. D/d. 1.4.2010.

Sawaran Lata etc. - Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Dinesh Verma, Rajat Sharma, R.V. Kameshwaran, Advocates.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 6, 11 and 54 - Acquisition of land - Challenge to acquisition proceedings cannot be made at belated stage - In the Instant case, notification to acquire lands issued in 2001 - Award also made in 2004 - Land owners challenged acquisition proceedings in 2009 - Challenge at belated stage held, not maintainable - Plea of landowners that they were not aware of acquisition proceedings as notification were published in newspapers which did not have wide circulation - Plea rejected - Very huge chunk of land belonging to large number of tenure holders had been notified for acquisition which should have been the talk of the town - Hence, in cannot be presumed that landowners had no knowledge of acquisition proceedings - Court further held, when a person challenges Section 4 Notification on any 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.

[Paras 6 and 12]

Cases Referred :-

Hari Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1020.

Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2077.

State of Mysore v. V.K. Kangan, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 2190.

PT. Girdharan Prasad Missir v. State of Bihar (1980)2 SCC 83.

Bhoop Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1414 : 1992(3) S.C.T. 120.

State of Orissa v. Dhobei Sethi, (1995)5 SCC 583 : 1995(3) R.R.R. 559.

State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1991 : 1995(3) R.R.R. 567.

State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Krishnan, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 497.

C. Padma v. Dy. Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (1997)2 SCC 627.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1997 Supreme Court 482 : 1996(3) RCR (Civil) 647.

State of Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi, (1996)6 SCC 445.

Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 234 : 2002(4) RCR (Civil) 784.

Haryana State Handloom & Handicrafts Corporation Ltd. v. Jain School Society, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 850 : 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 828.

JUDGMENT

B.S. Chauhan, J. - 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.

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 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 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 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 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 Petition Nos. 8794/2009 and 8761/2009 on 28.5.2009 praying 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. Being aggrieved, 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 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 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. v. State of U.P., AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1020).

7. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Aflatoon & Ors. v. Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors. AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2077, while dealing with the issue, observed as under :-

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 v. V.K. Kangan AIR 1975 Supreme Court 2190; PT. Girdharan Prasad Missir v. State of Bihar (1980) 2 SCC 83; Bhoop Singh v. Union of India AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1414 : 1992(3) S.C.T. 120. State of Orissa v. Dhobei Sethi & Anr. (1995) 5 SCC 583 : 1995(3) R.R.R. 559. State of Maharashtra v. Digambar AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1991 : 1995(3) R.R.R. 567. State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Krishnan AIR 1996 Supreme Court 497; and C. Padma & Ors. v. Dy. Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 627.

9. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 1997 Supreme Court 482 : 1996(3) RCR (Civil) 647, this Court observed as under :-

10. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. D.R. Laxmi & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 445, wherein this Court has held that even the void proceedings need not be set 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 :

11. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh & Ors. AIR 2003 Supreme Court 234 : 2002(4) RCR (Civil) 784; and Haryana State Handloom & Handicrafts Corporation Ltd. v. Jain School Society AIR 2004 Supreme Court 850 : 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 828.

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 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 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 the ground of delay.

.