Civil Appeal No 2213 of 1978
From the Judgment and Order dated 3111978 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No 106 of 1978
VM Tarkunde SB Wad Mrs JS Wad and Mrs Tamali Wad for the Appellants
KTS Tulsi Solicitior General TC Sharma and P Parmeshwaran for the Respondents
Kirpal Singh and MA Krishna Moorthy for the Intervener
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL J
This appeal by the Ramjas Foundation a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act 1960 and five others who are the Secretary and trustees of the Ramjas Foundation is directed against the order of the Delhi High Court dated January 31 1978 dismissing the civil Writ Petition No106 of 1978 in limine
On November 13 1959 the Chief Commissioner Delhi issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act  Land measuring 34070 acres was notified as land likely to be acquired by the Government at the public expense for a public purpose namely the planned development of Delhi
The following land was excluded from the scope of the notification a Government land and evacues land b the land already notified either under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for any Government Scheme c the land already notified either under Section 4 o under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for House Building Cooperative Societies mentioned in annexure lII d the land under graveyards tombs shrines and the land attached to religious institutions and Wakf property
The aforesaid land measuring 34070 acres included land measuring about 872 bighas 9 biswas situated in Chowkri Mubarikabad and measuring about 730 bighas situated in Chowkri Sadhurakhurd belonging to the Ramjas Foundation
The present appeal relates to the land situated in Chowkri Sadhurakhurd
The Ramjas Foundation on December 11 1959 filed objections under Section 5A of the Act for the entire land situated in Mubarikabad as well as Sadhurakhurd
The Lt Governor of Delhi subsequently issued notifications under Section 6 of the Act on 1541968 2741968 1551968 1981968 1411969 and 1811969
The Lt Governor also issued notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act on December 27 1972 for Sadhurakhurd land
As regards the land in Mubarikabad notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on February 28 1968
Ramjas Foundation filed a writ petition in may 1968 in the Delhi High Court challenging the action of the Government in acquiring their lands situated in Mubarikabad
In the said writ petition Sachar J as he then was who heard the petition was of the view that the matter ought to be tried in a suit instead of writ proceedings
He therefore by his order dated August 10 1971 permitted the Ramjas Foundation to withdraw the petition with liberty to agitate the matter in a suit and as such the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn
The Ramjas Foundation then filed a suit in the Delhi High Court on November 8 1971 for quashing the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in respect of the land situated in Mubarikabad
The suit was dismissed by Awadh Behari Rohtagi J of the Delhi High Court by order dated 2131977 reported in AIR 1977 Delhi 261
Learned Counsel for the appellants brought to our notice that Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court is pending against the aforesaid Judgment of the Learned Single Judge
So far as the land situated in Sadhurakhurd with which we are concerned in the present appeal a Writ Petition No 213 of 1973 was filed in the High Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 30th March 1977
Thereafter another Writ Petition No 106 of 1978 was filed challenging the notifications issued under Sections 4 6 9 and 10 of the Act and the same was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated January 31 1978 in limine as already mentioned above
We have heard Mr Tarkunde Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Mr Tulsi Learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the respondents
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants had submitted their objections under Section 5A of the Act on 11121959 but the same were rejected without affording any opportunity of personal hearing
It was submitted that it was mandatory on the part of the respondents to have given an opportunity of personal hearing specially when the same was desired and a denial of such opportunity of personal hearing invalidates the notifications issued under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act
Reliance in respect of the above contention is placed on Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad  Anr
vs Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad  Anr 19771 1 SCR 71
It was also contended on behalf of the appellants that the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act itself excludes the land of wakf property
It has thus been contended that so far as the land in question is concerned the same being also a wakf property as such ought to have been exempted under the notification itself
It was submitted that Ramjas Foundation is an educational charitable society which is running several schools and post graduate college in Delhi and several educational institutions are being run on the alleged acquired land itself
As an alternative argument it was submitted that in case this Hon ble Court takes the view that wakf property mentioned in the alleged notification does not include the educational and charitable institutions run by Hindus or non Muslims then such notification is void for violation of article 14 of the Constitution
As regards the objection of the violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 5A of the Act in
not affording an opportunity of personal hearing while deciding such objections we granted an opportunity to the Learned Additional Solicitor General to place material after examining the original record
We granted this opportunity to the respondents on account of the reason that the writ petition had been dismissed by the High Court in limine without issuing notice to the respondents and as such the respondents had not been given any opportunity before the High Court to place any material to refute the allegations made by the appellants in this regard
The Additional Solicitor General during the course of the hearing of the matter placed an order of the Land Acquisition Collector Delhi dated 2321968 which has been taken on record and for the purposes of identification has been marked as Annexure X 
A copy of the said Annexure X  was also given to the Learned counsel for the appellants
A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 2231968 clearly shows that the Ramjas Foundation Society was represented through Sh
Ratan Lal Gupta Advocate who was given a personal hearing
From a perusal of the aforesaid document Annexure X  dated 2321968 it is clear that full opportunity of hearing through counsel was afforded to the Ramjas Foundation
It has been further mentioned in this order that the Ramjas Foundation Society was also allowed to file fresh objections if so desired but Sh
Ratan Lal Gupta Learned Advocate for the Petitioner society declined and stated that there was nothing more to add in the previous objection petition
After bringing the said document Annexure X  to the notice of the Learned counsel for the appellants no satisfactory explanation or argument came forward on behalf of the appellants
The conduct of the appellants in raising the plea that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the appellants in respect of the objections filed under Section 5A of the Act was totally baseless and factually incorrect and such conduct is reprehensible
lt is well settled that a person invoking an equitable extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under article 226 of the Constitution is required to come with clean hands and should not conceal the material facts
The objection regarding not affording an opportunity of personal hearing in respect of objections filed under Section 5A of the Act was one of the main planks of the grounds raised in the writ petition as well as in the Special Leave Petition filed before this Court and ought we know if such ground had not been taken this Court would have entertained this appeal or not
The appellants have taken the advantage of obtaining the stay order also from this Court which is continuing for the last 14 years as the Special Leave Petition was filed in 1978 itself
It may be further noted that a common objection petition under Section 5A of the Act in respect of both the lands situated in Mubarikabad as well as in Sadhurakhurd was filed on 11121959 through Sh
Ratan lal Gupta Advocate
The said objections were heard in the presence of Shri Ratan Lal Gupta Advocate and disposed of by one common order Annexure X  and we cannot believe an ipse dixit explanation made orally during the course of arguments on behalf of the appellants that they had no knowledge of any personal hearing being given to Shri Ratan Lal Gupta Advocate
It is also important to note that no such objection was taken in respect of land in Mubarikabad
Another ground on which the present appeal has been contested is the ground of delay laches and acquiescence in filing the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings
As already mentioned above a common notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act for an area of 34070 acres of land needed for planned development of Delhi
Between 1959 and 1961 about six thousand objections were filed under Section 5A of the Act
The objections were overruled
On March 18 1966 the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in respect of a portion of the area
Thereafter in 1970 notices were issued under Section 91 of the Act and some of the persons who had received such notices challenged the validity of acquisition proceedings by filing writ petitions before the High Court of Delhi
The High Court negatived all the contentions raised in those cases and dismissed the writ petitions
Thereafter appeals by grant of special leave against the judgment of the Delhi High Court as well as writ petitions filed directly under article 32 of the Constitution were heard and disposed of by this Court by a common Judgment reported in Aflatoon  Ors
vs Lt Governor Delhi  Ors  In the aforesaid case a Constitution Bench of this Court held that in the case of an acquisition of a large area of land comprising several plots belonging to different persons the specification of the purpose can only be with regard to the acquisition of the whole area
Unlike in the case of an acquisition of a small area it might be practically difficult to specify the particular purpose for which each and every item of land comprised in the area is needed
It was further held in the above case that about six thousand objections were filed under Section 5A by persons interested in the property
Several writ petitions were also filed in 1966 and 1967 challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings
The Government had necessarily to wait for the disposal of the objections and petitions before proceeding further in the matter
The High Court was of the view that there was no inordinate delay on the part of the Government in completing the acquisition proceedings
The conclusion of the High Court was held to be correct
It was also held in the above case that the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the grounds of laches and delay on the part of the petitioners
In the above case this Court had found that the appellants of that case had not moved in the matter even after the declaration under Section 6 was published in 1966
They approached the High Court with their writ petitions only in 1970 when the notices under Section 9 were issued to them
This Court then observed as under There was apparently no reason why the writ petitions should have waited till 1972 to come to this Court for challenging the validity of the notification issued in 1959 on the ground that the particulars of the public purpose were not specified
A valid notification under Section 4 is sine qua non for initiation of proceedings for acquisition of property
To have sat on the fence and allowed the Government to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis that the notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to attack the notification on grounds which were available to them at the time when tile notification was published would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics
The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the petitioners
The delay and laches in the case before us are even worse than those in the above cited Aflatoon s case
The appellants had initially filed a writ petition No 21373 challenging the notification dated 13111959 under Section 4 of the Act and notification dated 2741968 under Section 6 of the Act with respect to 245 bighas and 1 biswas of land situated in the revenue estate of Sadhurakhurd and the notices dated 27121972 under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act issued by the Land Acquisition Collector Delhi with respect to Khasra No 1040353 12 bighas and 8 biswas
On 3031977 Shri MC Gupta Learned counsel for the Ramjas Foundation stated that he had instructions from his clients to state that they did not want to press the petition and wish to withdraw it
The statement of Sh
Gupta had been separately recorded
The Court in these circumstances permitted to withdraw the petition and dismissed the same as withdrawn
lt is important to note that in the statement Sh
MCGupta Learned counsel for the petitioners stated as under I may be permitted to withdraw this petition in view of the Judgment delivered by Hon
Mr Justice Awadh Behari in Suit 451 of 1971 decided on 21st March 1977 between the parties wherein the contentions urged were precisely the same as urged in this petition my clients reserved the opportunity to file a fresh suit if so necessitated by the circumstances in future
 It may be noted that the reference with regard to suit No 451 of 1971 decided on 21st March 1977 is in respect of the land of petitioners situated in Mubarikabad
It is surprising that though the opportunity was sought for filing a fresh suit the appellants again filed a writ petition No 106 of 1978 in the High Court on 711978 which was ultimately dismissed by the High Court in limine on 31st January 1978 by a Division Bench comprising of TPS Chawla and Awadh Behari JJ
In this writ petition No 106 of 1978 the appellants conveniently omitted to mention that the permission to withdraw the petition No 213 of 1973 was granted on the statement of Sh
MC Gupta that his clients reserved the liberty to file a fresh suit and not writ
Thus no liberty was sought or given for filing a fresh writ petition
In any case there were no fresh ground or circumstances available to the appellants to file a fresh writ petition No 106 of 1978 on 711978 on identical grounds when the earlier writ petition No 213 of 1973 had been dismissed as withdrawn on 3031977
Nothing had happened between 3031977 and 711978 for giving a fresh cause of action to the appellants to file the writ petition No 106 of 1978
Awadh Behari J had dismissed the suit No 451 of 1971 by order dated 2131977 in regard to the lands in Mubarikabad and he was also one of the Judges of the Division Bench who passed the impugned order dated January 31 1978 dismissing the writ petition in limine as he was fully aware of the entire background of this litigation
The appellants are themselves responsible for creating confusion in initiating separate proceedings at different period of time in respect of the lands situated in Mubarikabad and Sadhurakhurd though challenge to the acquisition proceedings was on common grounds
Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to satisfy in respect of such conduct of hide and seek on the part of the appellants
In case as sought to be explained by Mr Tarkunde Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants the appellants were depending on the result of the civil suit filed in respect of the lands situated in Mubarikabad there was no justification for filing the writ petition No 213 of 1973 in respect of the land situated in Sadhurakhurd as the suit was not decided in 1973 but was in fact dismissed on 2131977
We find no justification for filing the writ petition in respect of the land situated in Sadhurakhurd in 1973 and subsequently withdrawing the writ petition on 30th March 1977 reserving the liberty to file a fresh suit but thereafter again filing the writ petition on 711978 instead of suit
Independently of all the circumstances mentioned above we shall now consider the question of delay and laches in filing the writ petition No 106 of 1978 and the earlier writ petition No 213 of 1973 relating to lands in Sadhurakhurd
Mr Tarkunde Learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that there is no limitation prescribed for filing the writ petition and the question of delay and laches has to be examined independently in the facts and circumstances of each case
He has argued that the appellants are continuing in possession uptil date and though challenge has been made to the validity of notifications issued under Section 4 in 1959 Section 6 in 1968 and 1969 and Section 9 and 10 in 19722 there is no delay since no award has been passed so far and no loss has occasioned to the respondents due to lapse of time
It has been submitted that there was no change of circumstances during the intervening period and the delay had been fully explained on the aforesaid grounds
It has also been argued that notifications under Sections 9 and 10 were issued in 1972 and soon there after the appellants came forward with a writ petition No 213 of 1973 challenging the notifications issued under Sections 4 6 9 and 10 of the Act
We find no force at all in the above contentions
It is an admitted fact that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued as early as 1959 and all the notifications under Section 6 of the Act in relation to the land of the appellants in Sadhurakhurd were issued in 1968 and 1969
The challenge to the acquisition proceedings was mainly based on the ground that in the notification dated 13111959 issued under Section 4 of the Act the lands of wakf property were excluded and the lands of the appellants being also used for educational and charitable purposes the same were also liable to be excluded
At a later stage a ground was also taken that if wakf property in the aforesaid notification under Section 4 of the Act meant only wakf properties of the Mohammedans then such notification was discriminatory and violative under article 14 of the Constitution as there was no reasonable ground to discriminate such properties of Hindus or non Muslims also meant for charitable purposes
So far as the notifications under Section 6 of the Act are concerned the same were attacked on the ground that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to hear the objections filed under Section 5A of the Act
Thus it is abundantly clear that the challenge was in respect of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act alone and though in the prayer clause relief had been sought to quash the notification under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act also which were issued in 1972 but no ground whatsoever has been pleaded in the writ petition nor raised before us as to how the notifications under Sections 9 and 10 had any concern for explaining the delay in respect of the challenge to notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act
It is worthwhile to note that according to the appellants own showing the notices under Sections 9 and 10 issued to the appellants in 1972 were in respect of the land being Khasra No 1040353 which related to 12 bighas and 8 biswas only
The challenge on the other hand in the writ petition is in respect of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 covering the entire land measuring about 730 bighas situate in village Sadhurakhurd
We find no justification at all in explaining the delay on the ground that no award has been passed nor the appellants have been dispossessed so far
This cannot be an explanation for not challenging the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the 9Act and in the present case the appellants had themselves sought stay from this Court as early as 15111978 for not making and declaring the award and not to dispossess the appellants
Thus we find no justification at all for the delay in not challenging the notification issued under Section 4 on 13111959 till 1973
Even notifications under Section 6 of the Act were issued in 1968 and 1969 but not challenged till 1973
As already mentioned above in Aflatoon s case supra a Constitution Bench of this Court has clearly held that even after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act published in 1966 the appellants had approached with their writ petitions in 1970 when the notices under Section 9 were issued to them the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the grounds of laches and delay
Mr Tarkunde learned senior counsel made strenuous effort to distinguish the aforesaid case on the ground that in the aforesaid case the Court was influenced with the fact that the petitioners had sat on the fence and allowed the Government to complete emphasis added the acquisition proceedings
Much emphasis has been laid on the word to complete  the acquisition proceedings
We find no force in this submission as the facts narrated in the above case clearly shows that the petitioners in those cases had filed writ petitions in the High Court in 1970 and in the Supreme Court in 1972 after the issuance of notices under Sections 4 6 and 9 of the Act
The use of the word complete  was not of much significance and the main reasoning of the case was that grounds to attack the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were available at the time of publication of such notifications
In the facts and circumstances of the case before us the appellants were also sitting on the fence and did not take any steps of challenging the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act till 1973 though the grounds now sought to be urged were available to the appellants as soon as such notifications were issued
Thus viewing the matter from any angle we are clearly of the view that the writ petition was also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the appellants apart from other grounds already dealt by us
In the face of the aforesaid view taken by us it is not necessary at all to go on other questions raised in the case
We decline to express any opinion on any questions of law raised in the appeal
In the result we dismiss this appeal with costs
In view of the dismissal of the appeal itself all interim orders stand vacated automatically
GN Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant Bank issued Circular No 42 containing an understanding reached with the Staff union laying down the policy for promotion of clerks to the post of Head Clerks
As per clause 1d of the Circular the employees who decline to accept Head Clerk s post at a branch office outside the city in which they work will have a further option when a vacancy arises at any one of the Bank s offices within that city
However this was subject to the condition that at the material time there was no other senior employee who had similarly declined the post outside his branch office in which case the senior most would have the first choice
It was further provided that if an employee declines to accept the post of Head Clerk at an office within the same city his case would be considered only when a vacancy arises at his office
This was also subject to the condition that there was no senior employee similarly situated at the material time
If the third and final offer is declined there would be a permanent debarment of promotion
Since there were six offices at the Madras Local Head Office a common seniority was maintained and all the six offices were considered as one office viz local Head Office of which the other five offices were only parts
The Respondents declined their first second and final offers though indisputably the final offer was made to them for being posted in an office forming part of the local Head Office
Both the Respondents moved the High Court by way of Writ Petitions and the High Court took the view that the final offer made was not in the same office and so they were entitled to be posted as Head Clerks in the same office
Being aggrieved by the said two decisions of the High Court the appellant Bank preferred the present appeals
On the question of interpretation of clause 1d of the circular in question Allowing the appeals this Court HELD 1
The High Court s interpretation of cl 1d of the Circular that the third offer made was not in the office where the Respondents were working and therefore their refusal to accept the post did not exhaust the third option and they were entitled to be posted as Head Clerks in the Office where they were working is incorrect in view of the fact that the local Head Office was split into six different offices which together constituted one unit
By refusing to accept the third and final offer the Respondents had clearly exhausted all the three options and had become permanently debarred from seeking promotion to the post of Head Clerk
366 E G 2
This Court does not intend to interfere with the appointment of the respondents to the post of Head Clerk in the Regional Office in the facts and circumstances of these matters which show that in one case a fortuitous appointment had arisen due to death of an employee within almost a month of the Respondent s refusal to accept the offer and in the other case the Respondent has already been accommodated in the post of Head Clerk in the Regional Office itself
However this would not be treated as a precedent and this would not affect the interpretation of clause 1d of the Circular placed by this Court
366 H 367 A