IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10228 of 2011 Date of decision: 01.06.2011 Kartar Singh Brar and another …..Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.A.K.Kalsy, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification dated 7.5.1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), proposing to acquire a vast tract of land, including 2 kanal of land owned by the petitioners. Further challenge has been made to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 18.3.1992, finally ordering acquisition of above said land. Still further, an award passed on 15.3.1994 is under challenge. At the time of arguments, it transpired that when land was proposed for acquisition, one Kulwant Singh was owner of the same. Perusal of objection filed under Section 5-A of the Act (P12) indicates that at the time of acquisition, a piece of land measuring 2 kanal was lying vacant without any construction. As per admitted facts on record, the petitioners purchased the land on 17.4.1996. If that is so, we feel that they Civil Writ Petition No.10228 of 2011 are not entitled to lay challenge to the acquisition in question. Under similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.11015 of 1989 decided on 11.3.2011, titled as Smt.Vijay Lata v. State of Haryana and others, held that when a land owner has purchased the litigation by buying the land in question after issuance of notification under Sections 4 of the Act, no relief can be granted to him. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shanti Sports Club and another v. Union of India and others, (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 705, also held that:- “63. It is trite to say that once the land is acquired by following due process of law, the same cannot be transferred by the land owner to another person and that any such transfer is void and is not binding on the State. A transferee of the acquired land can, at best, step into the shoes of the land- owner and lodge claim for compensation”. Furthermore, this writ petition has been filed at a very belated stage. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3604 of 2011 decided on 26.4.2011 titled as Banda Development Authroity, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others have declined to grant relief to a land owner, who came to the Court at a belated stage. In that judgment, it was observed as under:- 16. “It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is that the High Court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect the settled/crystallized rights of the parties. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a 2 Civil Writ Petition No.10228 of 2011 civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006, the Constitution Bench considered the effect of delay in filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and held: “...................It has been made clear more than once that the power to give relief under Article 226 is a discretionary power. This is specially true in the case of power to issue writs in the nature of mandamus. Among the several matters which the High Courts rightly take into consideration in the exercise of that discretion is the delay made by the aggrieved party in seeking this special remedy and what excuse there is for it................................ It is not easy nor is it desirable to lay down any Rule for universal application. It may however be stated as a general Rule that if there has been unreasonable delay the court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party by this extraordinary remedy of madamus. .............................Learned counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Art.226. It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a Civil Court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured. The court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay 3 Civil Writ Petition No.10228 of 2011 is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonable.” 17. In matters involving challenge to the acquisition of land for public purpose, this Court has consistently held that delay in filing the writ petition should be viewed seriously and relief denied to the petitioner if he fails to offer plausible explanation for the delay. The Court has also held that the delay of even few years would be fatal to the cause of the petitioner, if the acquired land has been partly or wholly utilized for the public purpose.” Position is the same in this case. Land was proposed to be acquired in the year 1991. Notification Section 6 of the Act was issued in the year 1992. An award was passed in the month of March 1994. The petitioners purchased the land in the year April 1996, when the acquisition proceedings had already become final. They came to this Court after about 14 years of the purchase of land. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 01.06.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 4