CWP No. 16670 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16670 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.09.2010 Vijay Kumar and another ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) This writ petition has been filed to quash a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on 11.11.2002 (P-5). Further challenge is to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 07.11.2003 (P-6). Still further, challenge has been made to an Award passed on 31.10.2005 (P-7). It is apparent from the record that vide notification dated 11.11.2002, a vast track of land was proposed for acquisition including land of the petitioners. In response to the notice, the petitioners field objections under Section 5-A of the Act, which did not find favour with the authorities and thereafter, declaration under Section 6 was issued on 07.11.2003. Award was passed on 31.10.2005. The petitioner was satisfied and never made any attempt to lay challenge to the proposed acquisition and this writ petition was filed at a very belated stage, as such it cannot be entertained. CWP No. 16670 of 2010 2 Same is the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Lata etc. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664, paras No. 6 and 8 thereof read thus:- “6. When a person challenges Section 4 Notification on any ground, it should be challenged within a reasonable period, and if the acquisition is challenged at a belated stage, the petition deserves to be dismissed only on this count. (Vide Hari Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P., AIR 1984 SC 1020). xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 8. Same view has been reiterated by this Court observing that acquisition proceedings should be challenged before the same attain finality, in State of Mysore vs. V.K. Kangan AIR 1975 SC 2190; PT. Girdharan Prasad Missir vs. State of Bihar (1980) 2 SCC 83; Bhoop singh vs. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 1414: (1992 AIR SCW 1476); State of Orissa vs. Dhobei Sethi & Anr. (1995) 5 SCC 583; State of Maharashtra v. Digambar AIR 1995 SC 1991: (1995 AIR SCW 3116); State of Tamil Nadu vs. L. Krishnan AIR 1996 SC 497: (1995 AIR SCW 4390); and C. Padma & Ors. v. Dy. Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 627.” In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 482, it was also observed as under:- “If the interested person allows the grass to grow under his feet by allowing the acquisition proceedings to go on and reach its terminus in the award and possession is taken in CWP No. 16670 of 2010 3 furtherance thereof and vest in the State free from all encumbrances, the slumbered interested person would be told off the gates of the Court that his grievance should not be entertained 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. (Emphasis added)” The Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C.Padma vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698 and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280, have specifically stated that after passing of the Award, the writ petition to lay challenge to the proposed acquisition cannot be entertained. In view of above, this writ petition is dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE September 16, 2010 pj