CWP No.2154 of 1990 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2154 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.5.2011 Indian Refrigeration Industries ......Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. I.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for HUDA. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to a notice dated 22.7.1989 directing the petitioner to demolish an unauthorized construction being raised by it. Further challenge has been laid to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), proposing to acquire a vast tract of land including 9 kanals and 6 marlas of land owned by the petitioner, for a public purpose, namely, for development and utilization of land as industrial area in Bahadurgarh. Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 2.1.1980 is also under challenge. As per the admitted facts on record, award was passed on 8.8.1985. The petitioner, however, kept mum and did not lay challenge to the acquisition proceedings and woke up only in the year 1990, when this writ petition was filed by alleging that when the land was acquired, the CWP No.2154 of 1990 (O&M) 2 notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act were not issued as per mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is further stated that as the petitioner did not have any notice of the acquisition proceedings, it failed to file objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Upon notice, reply was filed wherein it was stated that there was a proper publication of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. It was further mentioned that by taking note of the construction at the spot, land falling in Khasra No.31/21/2 bearing 4 kanals 19 marlas was not included in the notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, the rest of the land was lying vacant and its acquisition was ordered. It is admitted by the petitioner, at the time of arguments that when the petitioner tried to raise unauthorized construction over the said land, notice dated 22.7.1989 was issued to it. It is not in dispute that award in this case was passed on 8.8.1985. Thereafter, this petition was filed. The petitioner has not filed any objection under Section 5-A of the Act. In the circumstances and in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Lata etc. versus State of Haryana and others AIR 2010 SC 1664 and D elhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and others , AIR 1999 SC 3822, this writ petition is not maintainable. Not only as above, admittedly this writ petition has been filed at a belated stage, acquisition was ordered before the year 1980, award was passed on 8.8.1985, the present writ petition was filed in the year 1990 by that time most of the land under acquisition might have been used by the Authorities for the public purpose for which the land was acquired. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3604 of 2011 decided on 26.4.2011 (Banda Development Authority, Banda versus Moti Lal Agarwal and others) have declined relief to a litigant who came CWP No.2154 of 1990 (O&M) 3 to the Court at a belated stage. In that judgment it was observed as under: 16. “It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is that the High Court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect the settled/crystallized rights of the parties. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006, the Constitution Bench considered the effect of delay in filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and held: “...................It has been made clear more than once that the power to give relief under Article 226 is a discretionary power. This is specially true in the case of power to issue writs in the nature of mandamus. Among the several matters which the High Courts rightly take into consideration in the exercise of that discretion is the delay made by the aggrieved party in seeking this special remedy and what excuse there is for it................................ It is not easy nor is it desirable to lay down any Rule for universal application. It may however be stated as a general Rule that if there has been unreasonable delay the court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party by this extraordinary remedy of madamus. .............................Learned counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Art.226. It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a Civil CWP No.2154 of 1990 (O&M) 4 Court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured. The court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonable.” 17. In matters involving challenge to the acquisition of land for public purpose, this Court has consistently held that delay in filing the writ petition should be viewed seriously and relief denied to the petitioner if he fails to offer plausible explanation for the delay. The Court has also held that the delay of even few years would be fatal to the cause of the petitioner, if the acquired land has been partly or wholly utilized for the public purpose.” Furthermore, at the time of arguments, the petitioner by placing reliance upon a letter, stated that the land falling in khasra No.31/22/2, during the pendency of the writ petition, was released from acquisition. To verify that fact, we asked the State counsel to get information and in response thereto, copy of a rough site plan, along with a copy of a letter dated 28.4.2011 has been put on record in which it is stated that only the land falling in khasra No.31/21/2 measuring 4 kanals 19 marlas was not included in the notification and declaration issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, whereas the land falling in Khasra No.31/22/2 measuring 4 kanals 7 marlas was acquired and award was passed with regard to that land. The same fact is also reflected in the rough site plan. As regards the letter on which reliance was placed, it is stated by the State counsel that it was done mischievously by some official in the office of HUDA against whom action has been initiated. CWP No.2154 of 1990 (O&M) 5 In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, no interference by this Court is warranted. Dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE May 16, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE