AF^ •^ \ f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR1 WRIT PETITION fC) No. 2769 of2008 PETITIONERS : 1. KrishnaLal Sahu S/o Shri GopiLal Sahu, aged about 48 years. 2. Ghanshyam Chandrakar S/o Shri Bhawanilal chandrakar, aged about 43 years. 3. Kj'ishnarao Markenday S/o Shr Alakhram Markenday, aged about 34 years, all resident ofvillage Bagaud Post Bagaud Tahsil Kurud, Dist. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPQNDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Revenue/Industries Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Dhamatari and Posted under Secretary Chhattisgarh Govemment Revenue Department District Dhamatari (C.G.) 3. TheSub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kumd, Tahsil Kurud, Dist. Dhamatari (C.G.) 4. The Land Acquisition Officer, Kurud Tahsil Kumd, Dist. Dhamatari (C.G.) 5. The General Manager District and. Industries Center Dist. Dhamatari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J, Present: ShriR.S.Patel, Advocate for thepetitioners. Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents 1 to 4. Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate for the intervenor-Chhattisgarh State Indusria.1 Development Corporation Ltd. QRALORDER (Passed on 16th day of January, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notification/notice dated 10.08.2007 (Annexure P/6), 7.12.2007 (Aimexure P/8), 8.2.2008 (Annexure P/ll) and 14.3.2008 (Annexure P/12) and further a writ of mandamus to the respondents restrainmg the respondents from acquiring the agricultural land in questlon. 2. The mdisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners are that the petttioners are the owner ofthe disputed land situated at village Bagaud and village Banjari, District Dhamtari. Admittedly, a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894') was issued on 30th July, 2007 and published in the r' official gazette on 17th August, 2007 (Arinexure R/l) Thereafter, a notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was published in the official gazette on 07.03.2008 (Annexure R/2). The award consequent thereupon was passed on 17.04.2008 (Annexure R/3). The petitioners during this period slept over their right and filed the present petition on 09.05.2008 after a period of 23 days from passing of the award, questioning the acquisition ofthe land on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners and no objection of the petitioners were considered. Be that as it may, the law on the issue asto whether a writ petition is maintainable after passing ofthe land acquisition award, is well settled. The petitioners slept over their right for a long period, even afiter passing of the award. A notification under section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was issued on 30.07.2007 and objection was raised by the petitioner. After consideration ofthe objectiona notification under section 6 ofthe Act, 1894 was published in the official gazette on 07.03.2008 (Annexure R/2). The petitioners did nothing during the acquisition proceedings and even after passing the award. The petitioners failed to challenge notification under Section 6 oftheAct, 1989. It is well settled principle of law that a writ petition questioning ofthe award is not maintainable as afiter taking over the possession oftheland the same vests absolutely in the Govemment free from all encumbrances. Even under section 48 of the Act, 1894, the State Authority also cannot withdraw from acquisition after possession has been taken over. In the matter ofMunicipal Corporation ofGreater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Others ,the Supreme Court held as under: "29. It is thus well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loath to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was ' (1996) 11SCC 501 -^ ti:'- -V 8. 9. 10. 's^ passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench oftheHigh Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the leamed Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the groundoflaches." In the matter ofState ofRajasthan & Others v. D.R.Laxmi & Others , it was held as under: 'c9.....When the award was passd and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference." In the matter of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & another v. Shah Hyder Beig & Others3, it was held as under: "17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceedings thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of Recently, in the matter ofSwaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. & another v. State of Rajasthan & Others4, the Supreme Court held that a writ petition having been filed after taking over the possession and the award having become final, the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches." No exceptional or extraordinary grounds exist or raised to invoke extraordinaryjurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia, to take a departure fromthe well settled principles oflaw.. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit 2 JT 1996(9)8c 327 3 (2000) 2 SCC 48 4JT2008(2)SCC280