AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. S. Sudeep Reddy, learned counsel appears for the petitioners.
Mr. Md. Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appears for the State.
Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appears for Union of India.
The petitioners who are land owners have challenged the validity of notifications dated 28.09.2004 and 09.02.2005 issued under Section 4(1) as well as declarations under Section 6 dated 15.04.2005 and 10.11.2005 and Awards dated 12.06.2006 passed under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
For the facility of reference, the facts in Writ Petition No.7617 of 2010 are being referred to.
The petitioners claim to be owners of lands measuring Acs.57.06 guntas covered by Survey Nos.506, 507, 508 & 509 situate in Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject land’).
The Zonal Manager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC) submitted a requisition on 26.03.2004 for acquisition of the subject land for the purpose of expansion of Hardware Park and related purposes. The process of acquisition of land under the Act was set in motion and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 09.02.2005. Thereafter, an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was conducted and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.11.2005. Thereafter, an Award was passed on 12.06.2006. The petitioners thereupon filed this petition on 06.04.2010 in which validity of the notification under Section 4(1), declarations under Section 6 of the Act and Award dated 12.06.2006 has been assailed.
In the aforesaid factual background, these Writ Petitions arise for our consideration.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that challenge to validity of Section 6(3) of the Act does not survive for consideration, as it has been repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is further submitted that the Writ Petitions preferred by similarly situate owners of the land have been disposed of by a common order dated 13.02.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8293 of 2005 and other connected matters and therefore, the benefit of the aforesaid order be extended to the petitioners in these Writ Petitions as well.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the benefit of the common order dated 13.02.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.8293 of 2005 and batch may not be extended to the petitioners as the petitioners have approached this Court belatedly and have filed applications seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is further submitted that the Collector on the basis of applications submitted by the petitioners has already referred the matter for adjudication to the Court and reference cases namely, O.P.Nos.292 and 1240 of 2007 are pending before the District Judge.
We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.
A Constitution Bench of this Court in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi AIR 1974 SC 2077 dealing with the issue of challenge to land acquisition proceedings has held “….to have sat on the fence and allowed the government to complete the acquisition on the basis that Notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to attack the Notification on the ground which were available to them at the time when the Notification was published, would be putting a premium of dilatory tactics”.
The Supreme Court while dealing with a challenge to the land acquisition proceedings, held that when a person challenges a Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 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 ground. [See: Hari Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1984 SC 1020]. Similar view was reiterated by Supreme Court in State of Mysuru v. V.K.Kangan AIR 1975 SC 2190; State of Orissa v. Dhodei Sethi 1995 5 SCC 583; State of Tamil Nadu v. L.Krishnan AIR 1996 SC 497 and C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu 1997 2 SCC 627.
In State of Rajasthan v. D.R.Laxmi (1996) 6 SCC 455, it has been held that delay in challenging the Notification under Section 4 of the Act is fatal and writ petition entails with dismissal on the ground of laches and if there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all the steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the court should be loathe to quash the Notification. It has further been held that even though the order may be void, but if the party does not approach the court within a 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.
In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal principles, we may advert to the facts of the case in hand. In the instant cases, the impugned notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act were issued on 28.09.2004 and 09.02.2005. Thereafter, declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued on 15.04.2005 and 10.11.2005 and Awards were passed on 12.06.2006. The petitioners waited for the acquisition proceedings to conclude and permitted the authorities to pass the Awards. After the Awards were passed on 12.06.2006, the Writ Petitions were filed approximately after a period of four (4) years from the date of passing of the Awards. Thus, the Writ Petitions suffer from delay and laches and the belated challenge to the land acquisition proceedings cannot be entertained.
For yet another reason, no relief can be granted to the petitioners as they have acquiesced with the land acquisition proceedings and after passing of the Awards had filed applications under Section 18 of the Act. The applications preferred by the petitioners were allowed and the Collector referred the dispute to the District Court. Admittedly, O.P.Nos.292 and 1240 of 2007 are pending adjudication before the District Judge.
For the aforementioned reasons, the benefit of the common order dated 13.02.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.8293 of 2005 and batch cannot be extended to the petitioners as the petitioners have slept over their rights and the Writ Petitions filed by them suffer from delay and laches.
Therefore, in our considered opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, the Writ Petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.