^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram : Hon'ble Shri SunilKumarSinha and Hon'bleShri R. L. Jhanwar, JJ. Writ Appeal No. 81 of 2009 Arisina outofW.P. 1873 of 2002 APPELLANTS 1. Smt. Anusuiya Singh, VWo Late Shri Yashwant Raj Singh, aged about 51 years, 2. Smt. Minaxi Singh, W/o Shri DharmendraSingh, D/o Late Yashwant Raj Singh, aged about 31 years 3. Shri Khadagraj Singh, S/o Late Yashwant Raj Sihgh, aged about 26 years, C/o Kawardha Bada, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) All are legal heirs / representatives of petitioner (deceased) Yashwant Raj Singh. Respondents Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Rural & Urban Aglomoration Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sub Divisionai Officer, Land Acquisition, Tahsil Kawardha, District - Kawardha, 3. BlockMedical Officer, Lohara, Tahsil & Distt. Kawardha (C.G.) WRITAPPEAL UNDERSECTION 20F THECHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 Appearance: Mr. Gautam Bhaduri, counsel for the appellants. Mr. A.S.Kachhawaha, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents onadvance copy. ORAL ORDER ' (29.10.2009) FQllowing order of the Courtwas passed by SUWL KUMARSINHA, J, W.A.No.81of2009 Heard on admission. 2. Being aggrieved with the order dated 12 January, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 1873 1 2002 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the appellants/legal representatives of the petitioner have filed this writ appeal. -z^ 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: After issuance of notification under Section 4(1)of the Lahd Acquisition Aet, 1894 (henceforth 'the Act'), an area of 0.50 acres of land bearing Khasra No. 763/1 area 1.19 acressituated in village Lohara, Tahsil Kawardha, DistrictKawardhawas acquired by the State Governmentand a draft award dated 28.05.2002 (Annexure P/1 in the Writ Petition) was prepared. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid landwas acquired*by the Government for construction of a 30 bedded hospital. It is also not in dispute that after completion of the acquisition proceedings, the possession of the land was taken over by the Government prior to filing oftheWritPetition. It is stated at the bar that 30 bedded hospital has been constructed over thesaid area of the land which was acquired by the Government in the aforesaid land acquisition proceedings. 4. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition in the month of September, 2002 after completion of acquisition proceedihgs for the following reliefs: 1) The petitioner most respectfully pray that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the order Annexure P-1 whereby the land was ordQredto be compulsorilyacquired. 2) In the alternative the petitioner prays that even if such acquisition is held to be valid the orderfor compensationfor such amount should haye been considered looking to the past transaction whereby thesuch land was sold to different persons for much higher value, and payment of should have been passed after -due considerafion of the value of the land existing at the site; And ^ iS, W.A.No. 81 of 2009 therefore this petitioner pray that the matter be remitted back to competent authority to decide the value of land considering the value of the land at site. 3) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be kindly granted. 5. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by applying the principles laid down in the matters of Ste(e of Raiasthan & Others v. D.R. Laxmi & Ors, JT 1996 (9^SC 327^ Munfcjpal CounciL Ahmednaaar & Anr. V.Shah Hvder Beia & ors.. 2000 (2) SCC 48 and Swaika Pmoerties Pvt Ltd. & Anr. V. State of Raiasthan & Ors.. JT 2008 (2)SC 280 wherein it has been held thatwhen the award was passed and possession was taken and the award having becomefinal, the Courts should not have exercised their power to quash the award under Article 226 of the Constitutibn of India and such petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 6. Mr. Gautam Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing on behalf pf the appellants, argues thatwhen the construction work was started by the Government, the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit before the concerned Civil Court and in the said Civil Suit, firstly, the Government made a statement that the land is now not required but thereafter the acquisition proceedings were completed by the Government, therefore, the act of the Government was unfair and the Writ Petition should not have been dismissed on the principle that the possession was taken over and there was delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the Writ Petition. 7. On a caceful considerationof the submissions made byleamed counsel for theappellants as also on perusal of the records Of the Writ Petitibh, it appears as an admitted position that the acquisition proceedings were completed^prior to filing of the Writ Petition and the award was also passed ^, lAnjan! W.A.No.81 of 2009 before that date. Not only this, undisputedly the physical possession of the land was also taken by the Government. The parties have also not disputed that after taking over physical possession of the land, the Government has constructed a 30 bedded hospital over the said land. In the present case, neither the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act issued by the State Government nor any other consequential action ofthe State Government has been challenged by the appellants/ petitioner on grounds of ma/a-ffde nor the appellants/petitioner have contended that the acquisition of the land was not for public purpose. 8. Taking exception to the above settled legal position, laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to above, the Supreme Court held in Vvalikaval House Building Co-op. Societv v. V. Chandrappa & Ors., 2007 AIR SCW 1164 that when the acquisition has been found to be totally mala fide andnot for bona fide purpose, the ground of delay and acquiescence will have no substance. We find that the present is not a case which is either covered under mala fide action or that of the acquisition of land not for public purpose, as the same was acquired for a hospital which has already been constructed. 9.' In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner on the above grounds. 10. The appeal has no merit. The same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. 11. No cost. Sd/- SUNILKUMARSINHA judge Sd/- R.L.JHANWAR Judge