Civil Appeal No 5313 of 1983
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 17th January 1983 in CMWP
No 8397 of 1982
Shanti Bhushan and section Markandeya for the Appellant
Gopal Subramaniam and Mrs section Dikshit for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
About 45 plots of land of Kheragarh village and about 15 adjoining plots of land of Nagala Udaiya village situated in the district of Agra were notified under section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 Act No 1 of 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act  for acquisition for a public purpose namely for the construction of the Market Yard of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Kheragarh under a notification dated January 8 1980 issued by the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh
As the plots of land in question which 419 were agricultural lands were urgently required for the aforesaid purpose and the Government was of the view that it was necessary to direct that section 5 A of the Act should not apply to the said acquisition proceedings it simultaneously made an order under section 17 4 of the Act directing that section 5 A would not apply to the said proceedings and incorporated the said order also in the notification issued
under section 4 1 of the Act
The notification was published in the Official Gazette dated January 9 1980
This was followed by a notification dated January 9 1980 under section 6 of the Act published in the Official Gazette dated January 10 1980
That notification contained an order made under section 17 1 of the Act authorising the Collector to take possession of the plots on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice under section 9 1 of the Act though no award under section 11 of the Act had been made
The above said plots of land which were in all about 60 in number belonged to a number of persons
The total extent of land proposed to be acquired was about 4146 acres
The possession of all the plots of land was also taken in the course of the said acquisition proceedings
In or about June 1982 notices were issued by the Collector to various persons having interest in the said plots under section 9 3 of the Act for the purpose of determining the compensation payable to them
After the issue of the said notices three persons Hari Singh appellant No 1 Pooran Chand appellant No 2 and Munna Lal appellant No 3 filed a writ petition in Civil Misc
Writ Petition No 8397 of 1982 on the file of the High Court of Allahabad questioning the validity of the acquisition proceedings as regards 6 plots of land in Kheragarh village out of the total of about 60 plots of land which had been acquired by the State Government in the above said proceedings
Appellant No 1 claimed to be the owner of plots Nos 249 250 and 252
Appellant No 2 claimed to be the owner of plot No 261 and appellant No 3 claimed to be the owner of plots Nos 133 and 134
Appellant No 1 pleaded that there was a house situated on plot No 249 and that he had also installed a flour mill on it
They all pleaded that they had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings and were prejudiced by the order made under section 17 4 of the Act exempting the operation of section 5 A of the Act in the case of these proceedings
They further pleaded that there was no urgency sufficient in law to sustain the order made under section 17 4 of the Act as nothing had been done on the lands for nearly two years
Appellant No 1 also pleaded that 420 section 17 4 of the Act would not be applicable because on a part of his land there was a house
They also applied for an interim order restraining the Collector from dispossessing them from the plots in question
On September 9 1982 the High Court made an interim order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellants from the plots until further orders unless they had already been dispossessed
But on January 17 1983 the High Court rejected the writ petition at the stage of admission after hearing the advocates for both the parties
This appeal by special leave is filed by the appellants under Article 136 of the Constitution on against the order of the High Court
The High Court has not given any reasons for its order dismissing the writ petition
The order reads Rejected 
We have been taken through the writ petition counter affidavits and other papers filed in the High Court and in this Court
At the out set we are of the view that the writ petition filed in July 1982 questioning the notification issued in January 1980 after a delay of nearly two and a half years is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches only
It is no doubt true that the appellant have pleaded that they did not know anything about the notifications which had been published in the Gazette till they came to know of the notices issued under section 9 3 of the Act but they have not pleaded that there was no publication in the locality of the public notice of the substance of the notification as required by section 4 1 of the Act
It should be presumed that official acts would have been performed duly as required by law
It is significant that a large number of persons who own the remaining plots have not challenged the acquisition proceedings
The only other petition in which these proceedings
are challenged is Civil Misc
Writ Petition No 11476 of 1982 on the file of the High Court filed subsequently by Amar Singh and four others
Moreover in a small place like Kheragarh where these plots are situate the acquisition of these lands would be the talk of the town in a shortwhile and it is difficult to believe that the appellant who are residents of that place would not have known till July 1982 that the impugned notification had been published in 1980
Any interference in this case filed after two and a half years with the acquisition proceedings is likely to cause serious public prejudice
This appeal should therefore fail on the ground of delay alone
421 Now even on merits there appears to be no substance in the case of the appellants
At the hearing of this appeal the appellants have confined their case to plots Nos 249 261 and 133 and have given up their case in regard to plots Nos 250 252 and 134
Appellant No 1 claims to be the owner of plot No 249
On behalf of the respondents it is urged that appellant No 1 is recorded only as a co tenure holder alongwith five others and they have not impeached the notifications
With regard to the allegation about the existence of a house on this plot it is seen that the said fact is denied
The respondents rely upon some statements recorded by the revenue authorities suggesting that there was no house on this plot on the date of the notification
This is a disputed question of fact
Appellant No 2 who claims to be the owner of plot No 261 is stated to have purchased it on November 17 1980 after the impugned notifications were published
The title of appellant No 3 to plot No 133 is denied by R K Kannaujia Secretary Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Kheragarh
In this state of affairs where there are disputed questions of fact it cannot be said that the appellants have made out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution
On behalf of the appellants reliance is however placed on a decision of this Court in State of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh  OrsI In that decision the main point made out was that the acquisition proceedings had been engineered mala fide by a State Minister
We do not have any such allegation in the present case
In the circumstances of this case we do not find that there is any ground to hold that the order made under section 17 4 of the Act exempting the operation of section 5 A of the Act is bad in law even though there appears to be some administrative delay in commencing the construction of the Market Yard
Some photographs of the land produced before us however show that the work of construction has already been commenced
We do not therefore find that there is any ground to interfere with the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition
The appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs
HSK Appeal dismissed


Summary:
On January 8 1980 the respondent State issued a notification under Sec 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for acquisition of 60 adjoining plots of land of two small villages for construction of a market yard
The notification also contained an order of the Government made under Sec
174 of the Act directing that Sec
5A would not apply to the said proceedings
The notification was published in the Official Gazette dated January 9 1980
That notification was followed by another notification dated January 9 1980 issued under Sec 6 of the Act
This notification contained an order made under Sec
17 1 of the Act authorising the Collector to take possession of the plots
The notification was published in the official Gazette dated January 10 1980
The possession of the plots was taken in course of the acquisition proceedings
In or about June 1982 notices were issued by the Collector to the interested persons for determining the compensation payable to them
By filing a writ petition in the High Court the appellants questioned the validity of the acquisition proceedings in regard to certain plots on the grounds that 1 they had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings and were prejudiced by the order made under sec
17 4 2 there was no urgency sufficient in law to sustain the order made under Sec
17 4 and 3 Sec
17 4 would not be applicable because on a part of a plot of land there was a house
The High Court dismissed the writ petition
Hence this appeal
Dismissing the appeal  HELD In a small place where these plots are situate the acquisition of these lands would be the talk of the town in a shortwhile and it is difficult to believe that the appellants who are residents of that place would not have known till July 1982 that the impugned notification had 418 been published in 1980
Any interference in this case filed after two and a half years with the acquisition proceedings is likely to cause serious public prejudice
This appeal should therefore fail on the ground of delay alone
420G H Appellant No 1 claims to be the owner of plot No 249
On behalf of the respondents it is urged that appellant No 1 is recorded only as a co tenure holder alongwith five others and they have not impeached the notifications
With regard to the allegations about the existence of a house on this plot it is seen that the said fact is denied
The respondents rely upon some statements recorded by the revenue authorities suggesting that there was no house on this plot on the date of the notification
This is a disputed question of fact
Appellant No 2 who claims to be the owner of plot No 261 is stated to have purchased it on November 17 1980 after the impugned notifications were published
The title of appellant No 3 to plot No 133 is denied by RK Kannaujia Secretary Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Kheragarh
In this State of affairs where there are disputed questions of facts it cannot be said that the appellants have made out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution
421B D There is no ground to held that the order made under section 17 4 of the Act exempting the operation of section 5 A of the Act is bad in law even though there appears to be some administrative delay in commencing the construction of the Market Yard
421F G State of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh  Ors   referred to