^s ^ AFiK w •^" H1GH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2398 of 2009 PETiTIONERS : 1. Smt Shraddha Thakur w/o Shishir Thakur, aged about 34 years, caste - Gond, R/o viSlage Patthalgaon, Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) At present R/o Laibagh, Jagdaipur, Dlstt. Bastar (C.G.) 2. Dr. Smt. Shashi Dhru w/o Shri Virendra Dhru, aged about 40 years, caste - Gond, R/o Maharani Hospltal .Jagdaipur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 3. Smt. Yogyavatl Kashyap w/o Chandravahan Kashyap, aged bout 41 years, caste - Bhatra, R/o UpanpaS, Tah. Jagdaipur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 4. Smt. Goretl Tirki w/o Anand Prakash Tlrki, aged about 38 yeai^, caste - Uraon, R/o Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattlsgarh, Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantraiaya, Rajpur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Jagdalpur, Dis.tt. Bastar (C.G.) 3. The Sub Divisionai Officer (Rev.) cum Land Acquisition Officer, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 4. C.G.Grih Nirman Mandai, through: Executive Engineer C.G.Grih Nirman Mandai, Div. Jagda'pur, Bodhghat Housing Board Cotony, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) WRiT PETITiON UNDER ARTJCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JNDIA SB: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Aanjhotri, J. Present: Shri Manoj Mishra, Advocate for the petitjoners. Shri A!ok Bakshi, Government Advocate for the State. Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on 18th day of August, 2009) Chailenge In this petition is to the notlfication dated 26 July; 2005 (Annexure P/1) under provisions of section 4(1) of the Land Acqulsltion Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894'), and the notlfication dated 16th November, 2005 (Annexure P/2) under proyislQns of section 6 ofthe Act, 1894. The facts, in nutsheii; are that the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Coliector, Jagdalpur, in exerclse of his power as Deputy Secretary to the Government, caused a notification under provisions of section 4(1) of "'%. ^ the Act, 1894, published in the QffidaS gazette on 26th July, 2005 for proposed acquisitlon of 20.29 acres of iand in viliage Hatl^achora, Patwari Halka No. 60(A), Jagdalpur, District Bastar, wherein the petition scheduled land, owned by the petitioners Is situated. Thereafter, a notificatlon under provisions of section 6 ofthe Act, 1894 was issued on 16th November, 2005. Thereafter, a notlce under section 9 ofthe Act, 1894 was issued. The petitioners challenge the above notlflcations by fiiing this petition on 6th Ma}!, 2009 on the grounds, Interalia, that the notlfication under section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 is vague and does not disciose detaii sur^ey numbers or khasra numbers of the iand proposed to be acquired by the government. Secondly, the respondent No. 4 cannot be appointed as prescribed authority under section 4(2) of the Act, 1894. Further, the response of the petitioner to the notice under sectlon 9 of the Act, 1894 was not considered properiy. The acquisitlon proceedings has been initiated without sanction or approval from the Municipai Corporation, Jagdalpur. The respondent No. 4, in its return dated 2nd Juiy, 2009 submits that the award was passed on 21st of Novsmber, 2006 (Annexure P/5) before fiilng of the present writ petition. Compensation has aiso been determinedand the iand owners have taken/received their respective compensation. Thus, after passing ofthe award, the iand vests in the State and as such, this petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution is not maintalnabie. Having heard learned counsei appearing for the partles, perused the pieadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the notificatlon under sectlon 4(1) of the Act, 1894 (Annexure P/1) was ^ ~ publlshed on 26th July, 2005, notlflcation under sectlon 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 16th November, 2005 (Annexure P/2) and thereafter, notice under section 9 of the Act, 1894 was issued. The petitloners have fiied their responses, compensation was determlned and the award was passed on 21st November, 2006 (Annexure P/5). The petitioners have not taken any steps to chailenge the iegaiity and vaiidity of the notjficatlons dated 26th July,2005 (Annexure P/1) under section 4(1) and 16th November, 2005 (Annexure P/2) under section 6 of the Act 1894, In time. Even the award was passed on 21st November, 2006 (Annexure P/5) but not steps were taken immediately thereafter. 6. Law is weii-settied that once the award has been passed possession of the land vests absolutely in the government free from all encumbrances. Even under sectlon 48 of the Act, 1894, the State authority cannot withdraw from acquisition after possession has been taKen over. 7. !n the matter of Municipal Corporation ofGreater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors1, the Supreme Court heid asunder: "29. it is thus weli-settled !aw that when there Is inordinate deiay in filing the writ petition and when aii steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become finai, the Court shouid be loath to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powere under Articie 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification under section 4(1) and dedaration under Sectlon 6. But it should be exerdsed taking al! relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exerclsed its power to quash the award which js a materia! factor to be taken into consideration before 1996 (ll)SCC 501 A?mt exercising the power under Articte 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 iearned Singte Judge dismissing the writ petition on the grounds of laches." 8. In State ofRajasthan & Others v. D.R.Laxmi & Other^, it was heid as under: "9....When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exereised its power to quash the award which is a materia! factor to be taken Into consideratlon before exerclsing the power under Articie 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardiy a ground for intsrference....." 9. In Munidpa! Council, Ahmednagar & anr. v. Shah Hyder Belg & Or^, It was he!d as under: "17. In any event, after the award is passed, no writ petitlon can be fiied chaiienging the acqujsition notice or agalnst any proceedlng thereunder This has been the consistent view taken by thls Court and in one of the recent cases {C.Padma v. Dy. Secy.to the Govt. of T.N.}.." 10. Recentiy, in Swa/fca Propert/es Pvt. Ltd. & anr. v. State ofP.ajasthan Ss 0/s, the Supreme Court heid that a writ petltion having been fiied after taking over the possession and the award having become final, the same deserves to be dlsmissed on the ground of deiay and laches. 11. Appiying the above weil-settied principies of iaw to the facte of the present case, this petition is dismissed as not maintainabie as no extraordinary or exceptiona! ground exist. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge •iJT1996(9)SC327 3 2000 (2) SCC 48 4 JT 2008 (2) SC 280