AFR Hi§H C$URT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION {C} NQ 663$ OF ZOO§ Saurabh Daga, Sio Shri S.K. Daga. aged about 33 years, R10 Near Akashwani Kali Mandir. CM! Lines, Raipur (CG). §EiIIiQN§g Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh‘ through the Secretary, Department of Land Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawam Mantra!aya. Raipur (CG). 2. Chhattisgafh Housing Board. through the Commissioner, 8hankar Nagar‘ Raipur (CG). 3. The Coilector‘ Raipur (CG). 4. Sub Divisiona! Officer, Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur (CG). 5. Keiuram. S/o Jhadu Teli, Rio village Dumartarai, Tahsil and District Reipur (CG). 6. Goverdhan. Slo Ramprasad. R/o viiiage Dumartarai, Tahsii and District Raipur (CG). 7. Aatmaram, Sfo Ghasiya. R/o viiiage Dumartarai, Tahsil and District Reipur (CG). 8. Sudarshan, Sic Jethu Satnami, Rlo viiiage Dumartarai, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). 9. Ag’siya.. S/o Dashrath. R/o village Dumartarai, Tehsii and District Raipur (CG). 1o. Amer Singh. Sfo Dukhuwa. R/o viliage Dumartarai, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). 11. Firanta, Slo Beniram, Rio viiiage Dumartarai, Tahsii and District Raipur (CG) . 12. Fatkan Bai, Wlo Mahasingh. Rlo village Dumartarai, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). 13. Sudhu Dheemar, Slo Bharosi, R/o village Dumartarai, Tahsil and Distriet Raipur (CG). z , .. A’1_ 14. Ramai. Sfo Men. R/o viHage Dumaltarai, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). 15. Bhukan. S/o Itwari, Rio village Dumartarai, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG}. 16. Gangabai. D/o Kejau, R/o village Dumarharai, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). 17. Shyamlai. S/o Guha. R/o viliage Dumartsrai, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG)- Santram Satnami. S/o Dayaram.‘ Rio village Dumartarai. Tahsll and District Raipur(CG). 19. Lakhrlu Satnami, Slo Jatiram, R/o village Dumartarai, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). 20. Bauwa Dheemer. S/o Dukhdei. Rio village Dumartarai, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). 2i. Bisauha Rawat. Slo Dhansai, R/o village Dumartarai, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). 22. Pardeshi Teli, Slo Shobhrai. Rlo village Dumartarai, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). 23. Samaru 8anami, Slo Nanuha. R/o village Dumartarai, Tahsii and District Raipur (CG). 24. Halli Dheemer. Sfo Nandlal, Rio village Dumartarai, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). 25. Kejin Satnami. Sio Hirau Satnami, R/o village Dumartarai, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). 26. Ramlal Satnami. S/o Partiya Satnami. R/o village Dumartarai, Tahsii and District Raipui' (CG). 27. iviangal Chand 8atnami, Sfo Mehtar. R/o village Dumartarai, Tahsil and District Raipur(CG). 28. Karmautin Bai, W/o Chain Rawat, Rio village Dumartarai, Tahsil and District Raipur(CG). Firanta Satnami. S/o Baldi Satnami, R/o village Dumartarai, Tahsii and District Raipur (CG). 18. @ (Writ petition under Amcle 226/227 of the Constitution of mdia) Single Bench : Hcn’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihctri. J. ’ Fresent :- Shri Gautam Bhaduri, caunsel for the petitiener. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Adv. Genera! fer the State. Shri Sanjay PateL counsel for the respondent No.2. GmL QRDER (Passed on this 2““ day of February, 2009) With the consent of iearned counsei appearing for the parties, the petition is heard tinaiiy. 2) By this petition, the petitioner chailenges the iegaiity and validity of i the award dated 2-7-2007 (Annexure—P/i) passed by the CoilectoriPresiding Gftioer (Land Acquisition), Raipur, in Land Acquisition case No.24 A—82/Year 2004—05 in respect of iand admeasuring 18.58 acres out of total land 54 acres (apptox) situated at village Dumartarai. ’3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents No.5 to 2§ have entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring 18.58 acres. The agreement was also executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner for sale of such land on 5-7-1988 at the rate of Re.33.000/- per acre. The earnest money was also paid by the petitioner. Subsequently. the land in question was subjected to compulsory acquisition by the respondent State under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (for short “the Act. 1894’) tor which a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894 was published on 1—12-2005 by the respondents No.1 & 2. After knowing about the same. the petitioner submitted written objection on 23-2-2006 before the Collector. but without deciding the same. the impugned award dated 2-7-2007 was passed. 4) The impugned award was passed on 2-7-2007 and possession thereof was taken by the State Government. The petitioner stept over his right for a long period and the present petition has been filed on 22-10-2008 Le. after lapse of more than one year three months from passing of the award. questioning the acquisition of iand on the ground that the objections raised by the petitioner were not considered. The petitioner did not chalienge any action of the respondents No. 1 to 4 till award was passed. 5) Be that as it may. the law on the issue asto whether a writ petition is maintainable after passing of the land acquisition award, is wet! settled. The petitioner siept over his right for a long period. even after passing of \f\ the award. A notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894 was @ published on 1-12-2005 by the respondents No.1 & 2, the objection was raised by the petiiioner on 23-2-2006 before the Collector and thereaRer the impugned award was passed on 2-7-2007. The petitioner did nothing during the acquisition proceedings and even after passing of the award. The petitioner failed to challenge the impugned award well within the stipuiated period. 6) lt is well settled principle of iaw that a writ petition questioning of the award is not maintainable, as after taking over the possession of the land the same vests absolutely in the Government 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. 7) in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. industrial Bevelopment Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Others". the Supreme Court held as under : “29. lt is thus well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in tiiing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become tinat, the Court should be loath to quash the notidcations. The‘High Court has, no doubt discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia to quash the notihcation 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 passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a materiai 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 of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of lashes." 8) in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Others vs. DR. Laxmi & Othersz, it was held as under : “9....When the award was 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 in the case, is hardly a ground for interference.“ 1 (1996) 11 scc 5m ‘ \ \f JT tees (9) sc 327 W9? 9) In the matter of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & another vs, shah Hyder Beig & others’, it was held as under : “17. In any event. after the award is passed no writ petition can be tiled 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 vs. Dy. Secy. To the Govt. of TN)...” . 10) Recently, in the matter of Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. & another vs. State of Raja‘sthan & Others“, 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. 11) No exceptional or extraordinary grounds exist or raised to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, to take a departure from the well settled principles of law. 12) The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. 13) y Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposedi/ sal— . K. Ag“"‘°“‘ Satish Raju Judge f (2000) 2 soc 48 r JT 2008 (2) sc 280