?'lh4@5en B'a'ncS r^ Lf€TO- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. ^S^ /2009 ^ APPELLANTS PETITIONERS n<\ ^- A-' ^^^--^^!'"3i^, """^fe- RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS ,.^ /^/. ..^ ^v/ ,.^u-' €W / J;'~NU7 /^p/ ^^'/ ^^/ •^ ^/]- Smt. Sushila Devi Jain, W/o. Rajkumar Jain, Aged about 53 years, R/o. Balaji Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) .<K^. ^"2] Smt. Bharti^frJain, W/o. Santosh Kumar Jain, Aged about 40 years, R/o. main Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) 3] Dilip Kumar Lunkedr S/o. Pannalal Lunkedr, Aged about 35 years, R/o. Balaji Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) ^t-} Pradeep Kumar Lunkedr, S/o. Pannalal Lunkedr, Aged about 38 years, R/o. Bijapur, Tahsil & District Daatewada (CG) VERSUS V\ State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, District Raipur (CG) --2] Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) ..---3] Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) -4] Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, through its Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, Division Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) 5] Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, Division Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT. 2006 RTW. RULE 157(10) OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT RULES ^ ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram : Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Shri Raieshwar Lal Jhanwar. JJ Writ Appeal No. 278 of 2009 Appellants Petitioners Respondents Smt. Sushila Devi Jaig and others Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 (1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH1 ACT. 2006 R/W. RULE 157 (10) OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT RULES Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the appellants/petitioners. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Government Advocate for respondents No.1to 3/State. Shri Jitendra Pali, counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 01ST APRIL, 2010) The following oral Order of the Court was passed by I.M.Quddusi, J. Heard. 2. This writ appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 11.08.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3671 of 2007 which was filed by the appellants/petitioners challenging the validity and propriety of notification dated 26.07.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') and notification 16.11.2005 issued under Section 6 of the Act and the proceedings of land acquisition whereby the lands of the appellants/petitioners have been acquired by the Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal who in turn handed over their lands to one private promoter/builder. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the 1.^%^^ i!i''::r:'u <?3E*f''ei; s~^y»••r"t'f.-tt-' <- '3- W.P.(C) No.3671 of 2007 on the ground that even after issuance of aforesaid notifications, the appellants/petitioners slept over their right for about two years and that the petitioners did nothing during the course of proceedings and even after passing of the award on 24.11.2006. 3. The notification under Section 4 of the-^Act was issued on 26.07.2005 and another notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.11.2005. Thereafter, the award was passed on 24.11.2006. 4. The petitioners did not approach this Couri: immediately after the award was passed on 24.11.2006 and filed a writ petition on 23.06.2007. In the absence of any justification for the delay in filing the writ petition at such a belated stage, the award passed on 24.11.2006 has become final. Such a belated writ petition, therefore, has rightly been rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground of gross delay and laches. In the case of Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Raiasthan & Ors., JT 2008 (2) SC 280, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a writ petition having been filed after taking over the possession and the award having become final, such writ petition should not be entertained on the ground of delay and laches. 5. In view of the above, we see no ground to interi'ere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. Aecordingly this writ appeal is misconceived and is therefore dismissed. _ — Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- R-L. Jhanwar Judge ["• \ y.\-)\