HIGH ovum“ OF CHHATnSGAKHLgg Writ Aggeai No.269/200§ WRIT APPEAL UNDER smm'on 2 m OF THE cag m n mmsagaa may: mum MPEAL xvgsmx BENCH'L Aer, 2606. DB: HGN’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & ON’B SHRI T. P. SHARMA JJ. HLE Agyearanc ; Shn’ Prafull Bharat, counsel 1hr the appellant. Shn’ Kishore Bhaduri, Addntional Advocate General for the State. {15.12.2008} Following order of the Court Was passed by M Sunil Kumar Sinha J. Heard on admission. This appeal 1's directed against order dated 5.8.2008, passed by the leamed Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 209/2003, whereby, the writ petition tiled by the petitioner e\\\ \r for issuance of mandamus commanding the t respondents to set \ y i r ‘ »rq g, I APPELLANT PET!T!QNER Dr. Shashi Sagar Verma, s] o S.C. Vsrma, agsd abcut S4 years) Rio zjb’, Govind Nagar, Raipur 492 (301 {CG} Versus RES?GNDENTS 1 Staae 01 Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaxy, Department Revenue, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawem, Raipur(CG) 2 Collector, Burg, Distcict- {CG} 3 The Land Acquisition Officer] Sub~Divisienal Oiiicer, District Dulg (CG) 4 Power Grid Comoration of India Ltd., Raipur Sub- Station, 2 W.A.No.269/‘2008 free m6 land acquired by them and handover the possession thereoi'to the petitioner, has been dismissed. A perusal of the impugned order would show that a nomication under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 12.12.1995 and was published in the otiicial gazette on 29. 12. 1995. Thereafter, a nomication under Section (3' of the Act, 1894 was published in the otticiau gazette on 5. 1. 1996 and the award was passed by the concerned authon‘ty on 6.12.1997. The petitioner did not agitate agamst these proceedings drawn by the concerned authority and ultimately, he iiied the instant writ petition on 9. 1.2003. ’I‘he learned Single Judge took a View that since the land was already acquired by the concerned authorities, the possession thereof was also taken over and no exceptional or extraordinary grounds exit or raised, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed and it was accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed before us that the possession of the land was taken over by the concerned authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1894. l-le argued that the View taken by the learned Single Judge that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, is not correct. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. lt is apparent from the records of the Writ Appeal that in the matter of 1995, the writ petition was tiled on 9.1.2003 i.e. after a period of8 years and that too after complete acquisition of the land and after taking over the physical possession of the land bV the concerned authorities. In this View of the matter, we do not find any fault in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the Writ Petition was filed after an inordinate delay in the matter that too alter taking over the physical possession by the concerned authority. 5 W.A.N0.269/2008 1n the matter of Swaiku Properties Pvt. Ltd. &mAnr. V. State qfRqiasfhan & Ors. JT 2008 I2) SC 180 the Apex Court held that the 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 01 delay and laches. 1n View of all this, we do not rind any substance in this appeal tiled by the appellant] petm‘oner. The appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge - Sdl’ Ty Sha‘ma Judge