^r^ II : ;-:--'/.' •ri; /- it..i :"^ HIOH COURTOE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WritPetttion No. 1873 of 2002 PeUtioners Kumar Yashwant Raj Singh, S/o. Late Shri Dharam Raj SIngh, aged about 55 years, Caste Gond, R/o. Lohara. DiaXt. Kavrardha, CG. Versus Resoondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secrstaiy, Rurat&Urt>aR^16niQrationDe|^rtment, D.K.S.Bhawah,Mantralsya,Raipur. 2. Sub Divisional Wicer. Land /tequi^tion , Tahsil Kawardha, Dl^t. Kawaidha, CG. 3. Block Medical Officer, Lohara, Tahsll & Distt. Kawardha. CG. (WritPetition underArticle 22^227 ofConstitutton oflntfa) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Satish fc Agnihtrtri, J. f .' Present: Mr. Gautam Bhaduri, counsel for ttie petifiena'. Mr. Bhaskar Payasi, Panei lawyerforttte State. ORAL ORCCR (Passed on this 12 dayot.lanuary, 2889) Learned counsel appearing <w the petitioner submits that the draft awarddated 28-5-2002 (Annexure P/1) is badon the yound that the State Government in pendlng Cwil Suit No. 99-A/2001 has mada the statement (Annexure P/8) that on a portion of the land admeasuring OSS acre of tfte land bearing Khasra No. 763/1 area 1.19 acres where construction was gojng on, the digging work had been stopped. The work for the satel purpose has been shifted toKhasra bewing No. 535 area 1.50 s res, Ranlbhata. Atorthe said statement which may not be retevant, notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisitlon Act, 1894 was issued stating cteariy the viBage Lohaea area 0.5 acre on 27-11-2001, thereafter,subsequentnotificadonswereissu|ed and necessary steps were taken before preparing the draft awa'd (tetjad 28-5-2002 (AnnexureP/1), which isinipugnedherein. | 2) The pefltioner has not challenged th9 acqui^tion on any cther grotiild. except that the impugned draft award was passed after TO z- stated statement by the State Government, the work g<ang on in the above stated Khasra No. 763/1 area 1.19 acres has bean stopped and the same has been shifted to Khasra bearing No. 535 area 1 .50 acres Ranibhata. The petitioner has not questioned the award on any other ground, which is permissibte under the law. 3) I have heard learned counsel for Uie parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4) It is well settled principle of law that a writ petiCon quertioning passing of theaward is not maintainable as after taking over the possession oftheland the same v^ts absolytely in the Government free from alt encumbrances. Even under Section 48 of the Act, 1894, the State Authority also cannot withdraw from acquisiUon after possession has been taken over. 5) In the matter of Munlcipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.1, the Supreme Court held as under: "29. It te thus well settled law that when then is inordinate delay in filing the writ peUUon and when all steps taken in the acquiation proceedings have become final, the Court should be loath to quash ttie notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia to quash the notificaflon under Section 4(1) and declaration under Sectioh 6. But it should be exereised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court shoutd not have exercised its power to quaah the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exereising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were ' i99o (i i) SCC 501 -3- created in ttte case is hardty a ground for interference. The Dlvision Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the dlscretton exercised by the learned Single Juc^a dismissing the writ peUtion on the ground of laehes." 6) In the matter of State of RajasUian & Others v. D.R. Laxmi & Ors.2, it was held as undeir: "9.... When the award was pasaed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exarcised tts power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taton into consideration before exercising the power under Articte 226. The fact that no Ihird party rights were creatad in the case, is harelly a ground forinterference....". 7) In the matter of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Anr. V. Shah Hyder Beig & ors.3, it was held as under: "17. In any event, after ie award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acqubition notice or against any proceeding ttiereunder. This has been the consistent vlew taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. ofT.N.)...". 8) Recently, in the matter of Swaika Prcyertiea Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V. State of Rajsthan & Ors. the Supreme Court held that a wrtt petttion having been filed after taking over the possession and the awaid toving become final, the same deserves to be dismissed on the grpund of delay and laches." 9) No exceptional or eidraordinary grounds exist or raised to invoke extraordinaryjurisdicUon underArticle226 of the Constitutton of India, totake a departure from the well settled principles of taw. 2 JT 1996(9)5c 327 3 2000(2)8cc 48 4JT2008(2)SC280 ^ -^ Raju •^l 10) Applying the wetl sattled principles of law to the fticts of fte present case, where the petitioner has failed to challenge the notiflcation and also the draft award on any olher ground, except some statement mads in &ie civil Court, which does not come in the way of subsequent acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the Land AcquisiSon Act., 1894, thus, ftis petition is not maintainable. 11) In view of the foregoing, this petition is dismlssed. Homewer, liberty is reserved to ttie petiUoner to take recouree to alternative torum wrtitch may be available to hlm fbr enhancement of ttie compensation, in aceordance with law, if so advised. Sd/- Satish K. Aghihotri Judge -V