^'? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioners ^/"} Wnt Petition No. 6951 of 2006 1. Tej Kumar Patel, S./o. Late Kirit Ram Patel, aged about 40 years, occupation Teacher. 2. Rajkumar alias Ramkumar , S/o. Late Chandrika P. Patel, aged about 53 years, occupation Farmer. 3. Smt. Gomati bai, W/o. Late Chandrika P. Patel, aged about 72 years, occupation - House Wife. 4. Heeradhar Patel, S/o. Late Kirit Ram Patel, Aged about 48 years, occupation Farmer. 5. Shiv Kumar Patel, S/o. Late Kirit Ram Patel, aged about 42 years, occupation Teacher. 6. Padum Kumar Patel, s/o. Late Chandrika P. Patel, Aged about 55 years, occupation Agriculture and Advocate. 7. Smt. Narmada, W/o. Late Kirit Ram Patel, Aged about 68 years, occupation House Wife. All r/o. Village Kalmi, Tahsil & District Raigarh (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ' . 2. The Collector/Incharge, Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, Raigarh (CG). 3. Land Acquisition Officer/S.D.O, Raigarh, Raigarh (CG). 4. Managing Director, Jila Vypar & Udyog Kendra, Raigarh, Raigarh (CG). 5. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., through its Managing Director, Kharsia Road, Raigarh (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aenihotri, J.) Present : Shri R.K. Pali, Advocate appears on behalf of Ms. Dipali Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for theState. Shri Shashank Thakur, counsel for the respondent No.6. RESPONDENTS ORAL ORDER ith (Passed on 14I" day ofMay, 2008) X, .r 1. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 9-5-2008, a request was made by leamed counsel for the petitioners for adjoumment. Even today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners repeats the same prayer in I.A.No.16. The application is rejected. 2. The issue involved in the present case is whether a writ petition is maintainable after passing ofthe land acquisition award. This very issue was considered and decided in the matter ofRajesh Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (Writ Petition No. 6328 of 2005), decided on 25-4-2008. The petitioners impugn in this petition the entire land acquisition proceedings alongwith the award dated 31-7-2006 and 22-9- 2006 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and approved by the Collector, Raigarh, afterpassing ofthe award. 3. The brieffacts, in nutshell are that the petitioners are the Bhumi Swamis ofprivate lands situated at Village Kalmi, District Raigarh (CG). The State Govemment published the notification dated 30-7-2005 under Section 4(1) ofthe Act, 1894 for the purpose of acquisition ofthe land stated therein. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 oftheAct, 1984 was published on 4-11-2005. The petitioners, questioning the notification(under Sections 4 and 6 ofthe Act, 1894 in Writ Petition No.4196 of 2006 (Padum Kumar Patel and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) have withdrawn the petition on 29-11-2006 > . "v!s^s^ I,' -x ""B f t\ 'it. cf' /y ''%^ i""-c-s;'\ ,'1~ with liberty to file afresh in case cause of action arises. The award was passed on 31-7-2006, therafter, the present petition was filed on 1-12-2006 questioning the award dated 31-7-2006. <. •><„ 4. It is not disputable that possession of the land in question thereafter has been taken and the same vest absolutely in the Govemment, free from all encumbrances. 5. The question of law with regard to maintainability of the writ petition after award has been passed and possession ofthe land has been taken, is well settled by a catena of decisions ofthe Supreme Court. After taking over the possession of the land, the land absolutely vest in the govemment free from all encumbrances, therefore, the writ under Article 226 ofthe Constitution is normally not maintainable. 6. In the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors , 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 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 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; The Division Bench ofthe High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the leamed Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the groundoflaches." 7. In the matter ofState ofRajsthan & Ors. v. D.R. Laxmi & Ors. , it was held as under: 1996 (11) SCC 501 JT 1996(9)8c 327 /^\^ %^--^. '^ ' "'aSI,' & '""w^.' : t': ®i; ' •.'.' "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 mterference...." 8. In the matter of Municipal Council,Ahmednagar & Anr. v. Shah Hyder Beig & ors. ,it was held as under: "17. In any event, after fhe award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C.Padmav. Dy. Secy. tothe Govt. ofT.N.)...." 9. Recently, in the matter of Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Rajsthan & Ors. , the Supreme Court held that a writ petition having been filed after taking over the possession and the award having become fmal, the same deserves fo be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. lO.Applying the above well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable as no extraordinary or exceptional grounds exist. However, it is open to the petitioner to make a reference under the provisions of section 18 ofthe Act, 1894, ifso advised. At the request, ifthe reference is made within a period of four weeks, the delay shall not come in the way of the petitioners. No order asto costs. ^ raju Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Vacation Judge 2000 (2) SCC 48 JT 2008(2)8c 280 ^.:.,.;.