THE 31$ COURT OF MADHYA PRADESE AT JABALPUR M1SC.9ET1TION Nahug a? 1994 INv 3. §§2§§§§1 Udaya Sahkari Erin Niman Sansthamaxyadit, Villager frat‘ib'a’ndh,v Tahsil and District ‘Raipxr, aged (M.P.)‘ abcut Througli 48 years, its President son of Deen , B,anm‘m mandralcér , and Ghasi Ram mandrakar, Cultivator , :esideni: of Village Tatibanah, Tahsfl and” District RAIPUR (M.P.). suresh makur; aged about 4Q years. son of Shri Yova Raj Thakar,»,5emice, ”ryesident ,of Village Tatibandh, Tahsil and’ matrict Raipur (mma Durjan Sahu. aged about 4_5 years, son of Sonu Saim, Cultivata; , brgsideRnVt ef Village Tatibandh, mstrict mama MP.) ’ Neem Bag. Sahu, aged about 35 years, Daughter of fe of Radheshyam sahu,‘ Cultivator, Tahsil and District Ram’Dayal ané. Wi teeioent of village Tatibandh, RAIPUR (M.P.)r. Pyarelal Sahu, aged about 65 years, son of Late Budhai Sahu, cultivator, xesident of Village Tatibandh, Tahsu and District RAxPUR' (M.P.) VReWa Ram Sahu, aged about 47 years, son oi late daamru ‘llage Tatibandh ,Tahsil Sahu, Oaltivator, resident of V1 and District RAIPUR (M.P.) ant. wedia Bai Sahu, eged about 65 years, daughter of late Manglu Sahu and Widow of later‘Ram Rattan Sahu, I l Cultivator, resident of Village wawaandh, Tahsil and District RAIPUR (M. P. ) . v _ i 8 J Lami Narain Singhania, Tatib‘anah, Tahsil and District mIPaR (ma). Contained2-‘ ‘ i aged about 46 years, son of late resident or Villag‘e Pooran Mal $inghania, Businessman, l‘ahsil and ‘ . f Vv ; mt. Shanti Devi Tiwar W/o Radha Kishan Tiwa, residen cf 0&4,Shai1enara Hagar , Raiwr , City , Téhsil and District Raipur, Thmnglé' her Power of Attorney-Holder, Mohan Tiwar. son of 2aram Sukh Tiwari resident of C-84 Shailendra Hagar, Raipur, City, Tahsil and Distric‘t RAIwR (M.P.). { stat. Jyoti Devi, W/o Kanhaiyalai Tiwar. resident of 0-84 $hailendra Hagar, Raipur city , Tahsil and District i Raipur (M.P.), ‘Thmugh her Fewer'of Attemey Holder, i Mohan TiWar son of Paramsukh Tiwar, resident of c-84 Shailendra Nagar, Raimr,‘ City ,Tahsil and Distxict RAIPUR 04.9.). amat Mal Tiwar, son of Mohan Lal Tiwar , resident of 0-84 Shailendra Nagar, Raimr, City, Tahsil and District Raipur, (M. P.) Through his Power of Attorney Holder, Mohan Tiwar, resident of 0-84, §hailendra Nagar, Raipur city, Tahsii and District RAIPUR (mm) . PETI’TIGNERS VERSUS. ——-—_ The state of Maahya' maaesh, maopal, City, Tahsil and‘District Bhopal (M.P.), Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Praaesh, Vallabh Bhawan; BHoPAL, City, Tahsil and District 3HOPAL (M.P.) . The Commissioner, Raipur Division Raipur, city, Tahsil ana DistrictoRAIPUR (M.P.). The Collector, Raipur Districtgaipur, city, Tahsil and District RAIPUR (M.P.)‘ The Land Acquisition officer of the office of the Collector, Ra‘iw-r, City ,Tahsil and District RAIPUR (M.P.)‘ me Tahsildar, Reign: Tonsil. Raipur, City ,' Tahsil and District RAIRIR (mm). The Madhya Pradesh Griha Niman Mandai, 3/5, Vithai § Market, Arera Colony. Bhopal, City, Tahsil and Distri: VE‘waa-ooo .03. ‘3 S f tj 5 , \ Bhopal (ma), mmugh its Principal Executive efficer called the Housing Commissioner, adhya Pradesh Griha Niman Mandel. 3/5. Vithal Market, Arera Colony, Bhepal City. Tahsil and District BHoPAL mm.) . Madhya Praéesh Griha Niman Manda]. City ,Tahsil The Executive mgineer, Raipur 'Divisiont Shankar Nagarr Raipzr, and District RAIPUR (mm) ONDE Pmrnm mmR ARTxCLEs 226 AND 227 a? THE consnTUTIoN er INDIA ‘ w“ » 1:K 2. The acquisition proceeding was initiated on 19‘“ November, 1982 after publication of the notification under Section 4(1) readwith Section 17(1) of the Act, 1894, which was published in the official gazettee on 10th June, 1983 (Annexure R-1). Thereafter, a declaration under the provisions of Section 6 of the alleged Act was H V ....._ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 448 OF 1994 PETITIONERS Udaya Sahkari Grih Nirman Sanstha1 Maryadit & Others Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri Yarun Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner 4 Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the Housing Board/ respondents No.6 & 7. Q, ORDER (Passed on this 20th day of September, 201 1) z Q ik 1. ln the instant petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the draft award dated 29.10.1986 signed by the respondent No.4 and approved on 11.03.1987 by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur. Further, to quash the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated on 19.11.1982 on the ground that notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act, 1894’) was published in the official gazette dated 19m August, 1983 and thereafter, Section 11A, which was introduced by Section 9 of ”at ($3 the Act, 1894, came into force w.e.f. 24m September, 1984, The award was not passed within a period of two years from the t commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. The original writ petition was filed after passing of the award dated 29’“ October, 1986, on 10th February, 1994, after a period of seven years. 2 ) published in the official gazettee on 19th August, 1983 (Annexure R—2). The objections were filed after the publication under Section 9(1)(2) of the Act, on 13th November, 1983 in respect of the compensation. The possession of the land was taken over on 27th September, 1983 and thereafter, award was signed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 29‘“ October, 1986 (Annexure R—3). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 & 7 /Housing Board submits that the entire award amount including interest had already been deposited with the officer concerned and the petitioner society had already accepted the entire award amount. The land in question vested in the Government was handed over to the R4 respondent Housing Board on 27‘“ September, 1983. Thus, the \i. .: instant petition has become infructuous. .Q‘ 4. The petition has no merit. The notifications were published under Section 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894, and thereafter, the award was signed on 29th October, 1986, by the Land Acquisition Officer. No challenge was made to the acquisition proceedings before filing of this petition on 10m February, 1994. The instant petition was filed after a period of seven years. Thus,’ on the ground of laches and delay also, the petition deserves to be dismissed. The land vested in the State Government, which cannot be reverted to the owner on the delay in signing the award, when the dispute was not raised immediately and for want of any interim relief, the Board has already constructed residential houses and allotted to other persons, as submitted by the learned counsel for the Housing Board. The other persons, who had acquired right on allotment of the houses/land by the respondent Housing Board, have not been impleaded as party respondents. 5, In the matter of Municipal Corporation of GfeaterBombay v. lndustria/ Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Others’. 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 of lndia 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 is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of Iaches.” 6. In the matter of State of Rajasthan & Others v. D.R.Laxmi & Others2, it was held as under: “9 ..... When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercisedWts 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.” 7. In the matter of Municipa/ Council, Ahmednagar & another v. Shah Hyder Beig & Othersa, it was held as under: “17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceedings thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. ofT.N.)...." 1 (1996) 11 scc 501 2 3 JT 1996 (9) so 327 (2000) 2 soc 48 8. Recently, in the matter of Swaika Propelfies Pvt. Ltd; & another v. State of Rajasthan & Others", the Supreme Court held that a 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 of delay and laches. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Kaliyappan v. State of Kera/a & Others5 has held that the limitation period of two years for making an award is to be computed from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, 1984 (24.9.1984), till signing of the award and not till service of notice of the award to the person whose land is acquired. 10‘ ln Satendra Prasad Jain & Others v. State of U.P. & Otherss , three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court has held as under : 15. Ordinarily, the Government can take possession of the Iand proposed to be acquired only after an award of compensation in respect thereof has been made under Section 11. Upon the taking of possession the Iand vests in the Government, that is to say, the owner of the land loses to the Government the title to it. This is What Section 16 states. The provisions of Section 11~A are intended to benefit the landowner and ensure that the award is made within a period of two years from the date of the Section 6 declaration. In the ordinary case, therefore, when Government faits to make an award Within two years of the declaration under Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government and its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings are stii/ pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section 11— A, lapse. When Section 17(1) is applied by reason of urgency, Government takes possession of the Iand prior to the making of the award under Section 11 and thereupon the owner is divested of the tit/e to the land which is vested in the Government. Section 17(1) states so in unmistakable terms. Clearly, Section 1'1—A can have no application to cases of acquisitions under Section 17 because the lands have already vested in the Government and there is no provision in the said Act by which land statutorily vested in the Government can revert to the owner. Q2 A scc 280 \113 ‘517 4‘ r» Y": ashok 7 (1996) 6 SCC 424 _‘ 11. Subsequently, in Allahabad Development AL/thorlty v. Nesiruzzaman & Others7 the Supreme Court reaffirmed the ratio holding as under: “This question was examined by this Coun‘ in Satendra Prased Jain v. State of U.P. and Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and held that Section 11-A does not app/y to cases of acquisitions under Section 1 7 Where possession was already taken and the land stood vested in the State. The notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 do not lapse due to failure to make an award Within two years from the date of the declaration." 12. The instant petition fails firstly on the ground of Iaches and delay, as after passing of the award, the petitioner has not approached this Court for alleged grievance, as according to the petitioner, the award was not passed within a period of two years from the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act, 1984. Secondly, it is well settled principle of law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in above— stated cases that, if Section 17(1) has been invoked on'account of reasons of urgency, Section 11A will have no application to cases of acquisition under Section 17 on the ground that lands have already vested in the Government. In the case on hand, provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1894 was invoked along with the publication of notification under Section 4 (1) on to‘h June, 1983, before signing of the award on 29m October, 1986, the land in dispute was taken over by the State respondents on 27th September, 1983, and the same vested in the Government, which was subsequently ailotted to the respondents No.6 & 7/Housing Board 13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is shorn of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. , r v‘ " / scl‘ SATtsKK‘AG 3udge ./’ /‘ VJ? ytmow