k $Smgua gaw: IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILA$PUR W3 Wrh‘ Peii’rion (C) No‘ / 2009 In ihe mutter of: A / . . . 1. Mahonodl Educahon Soc1e1‘y Through its Secretary Shri Shoiiendro Join, H Near Nalghar Chouk, . Chotreporc, Roipur—492 001 /" 2. Konger Valley Academy ’rhrough ifs Administrarive Officer Opposh‘e Pd. Ravi Shankar Shukla Gymnasiyam Doomar Talab, Raipur Petitioners Versus 1. /Sfafe of ChhaTTisgarh. Through the District Coiiector, Office of Collectorate, Raipur, Chhattisgarh / 2. The Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, District Raipur aipur , Chhattisgarh R Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukta University Through its Vice ChanceHor, Doomar‘Taiab, Raiur, Chhattisgarh p / / ... Respondents WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA " ” / My HIGH C6URT OF CHHATTISGARH : ELASPER WRIT PETITIOMC} No.1663 OF 21309 ?ET§T10NERS Mahanadi Educain SD mix; :3: Anathar Vemus $tate of Siate of Chhatt§$garh & Others {Wm Petmm weer Ams 22bf227 OT the Cansuiution of ndia) single Berch Hen ble Sh“ Satash K Agmhotu J Pre$em ‘- ShnAnkiSmahai Advecatn forthe nehtxoners Shn P K Budun Pane; Lawyar fur t'1= Slatnhespondent No i 8: 2 Shn H b Agra ’ai Sr Advocate Wltn Ms Meera Jalswai, Advssaxe for xf‘e respoadent NO 3 RESPON‘ENTS ORDEag'OR/AL; (Passed on this 26‘“ day of July, 2010) A“ By this petition, the pet§tiorzers seek t0 chaibnge ihe !ega3ity ami vaHdity of me award dated 01I05/2007 (Annexure PM) paseed by the Lend Acquisiticn Offace{/Sub-Divisional Officer, Raipur in iand acquisition case he; 07 A-82 yeaf 2005—06 {Kuisachiv v. Bhagwati Bai), in reseect of iarid situated at viiiage—Domartaiab Patwari Haika Ne. i04, Revenue Cii’cie, Raipui. Si‘iri Singhai, learned ceunsei appearing for the petitioners submiis 'iha'i 0n the baeis of requisition made by reependenr No.3 on i4ii2l2805: vide noiice dateti 20fQ’i/2OG$, the notificatien under $eciien 4(1) of the Land Acquisiticn Act, 18%: {for Sheri “the Aer, 1894”) was pubiished. The petiiianers submitted their abjeetion on G2/‘Q3/2006 (Annexure P/3) to the said notificatian dated 2OI01/2006. When no action nae/been rgken on rhe o‘oj‘ections submined by the ey petitioners, the petitioners again raised their objeciiens on 2518412007 (Annexure PM) and on 17!”:2/2007 (Annexure 935). raised by the petittonere, on 01/053007 the impugned award was passed in an iiiega! anti arbitrary manner. Thus, this petition. 3. Can the other hand, Shri Bhaoiuri, iearned Panei Lawyer and Shri HE. .Agrawai, ‘iearned $enior Advocate, appearing for the respondente eubmit that the notification has been I iseueci on 20/01/2006 whereas, the . petitioners have Submitted their objections to the sai notificatien However, without considering the objections m d on 02/03/2006, Le. after lapse of the prescribed limitation period of 30 days, as provided ui’lder the provisions of Section 5A of the Act, 1894. The award was passed on 01f05f2007 and possession of ihe lanci was taken by the respondent authorities. The petitioners have slept over their right and they moved the objections aiter the prescribed limitation, thus, they are not entitled to any reiief. 4. 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 weli settled. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was published on 20/01i2006, the objection was raised by the petitioners on 02/03/1'2006 i.e. after the prescribed limitation of 3O days. 5. This Court in Saurabh Daga v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others1, observed as under: ”6. it is weil settled principle of law that a wn’t petition questioning passing of the award is not maintainabie, as after taking over the possession of the land the same vests absoluteiy in the Government free from ail encumiarances. Ever? under Section 48 of the Act, i894, the State Authority also cannot withdraw from acquisition after possession has been taken over, " 6. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. industrial Development investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.2, the Supreme Court held as under: “2g. it is thus well settled /aw that When there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have beoome finai, the Court should be ioafh to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the notitication under Section 4{1) and declaration under Section 6. But if should be exercisedltaiting all relevant factbrs into pragmatic consideration; When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court shouid 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. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the ieamed 'Singie Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches. " 1W? (C) No. 6039 or 2008 (Decided on rpm/2009) 2 1996 (11) soc 501 ' ) (A‘ 7. in State of Raéasthan & Others v. DR. Laxmi & Ora? it was heid as undet When the award was passed and possession was taken the Court should not have exercised its power fo quash the award which is a mafen'a/ factor to be 'taken into considerafion before exercising the pawer uirder Arz‘ic/e 226. The facf mar no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. . .. ". 8. in Municipal Councii, Ahmednagar & Anr. V. Shah Hyder Beig & ors.4, it was heid as under: ‘ “17. in any event, after the award is passed he wri? petition can be fiied chalienging the acquisition notice or againsi any proceeding thereunder. This has been ihe consistenf View taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C, Pad/ha v. Dy. Secy, to the Govt. of T.i\i.)...”, 9. in Swaika Propertiee Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V. State of Rajsthan & Ors.5, the Supreme Court held that a writ petition having been tiled after taking over the possession and the award having become finai, the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of deiay and iaches.“ 10. No exceptionai or extraordinary grounds exist or raised to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to take a departure from the weli settled principles oi law. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .. . .. . 3 n 1996 (9) so 327 4 2000 (2) soc 48 5 JT 2008 (2) so 280 9