'•'wwyix^u '•'"'s^^^^i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA]EUI AT BILASPUR •^' PETITIONERS —^ WritPetition No. 3833 of 2006 1. Gyan Singh S/o Bhuwneshwar aged 68 years. 2. Gajendra S/o Pooran aged 52 years. 3. Gopal S/o Sancho aged 55 years. 4. Indro S/o Bilai, aged 60 years. 5. Khageshwar Sahu'S/o Gaaesh aged 55 years. 6. Shanti Bai D/o Kashiram aged 55 years. 7. Kashiram S/o Nanku aged 57 years. 8. Paanbudi, S/o Chhote, aged 62 years. 9. Chaitu, S/o Hariso, aged 65 years. lO.Thhandu S/o Mittru aged 57 years. 11. Dhobi, S/o Buddi aged 62 years. 12. Gautam Prasad Raathia S/o Smtosh aged 48 years. 13-Usatram, S/o Naanhu, aged 72 years. 14. Dewanand, S/o Nanki Ram Aged 40 years. IS.Phool Singh S/o Manglu aged 58 years. 16.Rambharos Yadav, S/o Giri, aged 58 years. 17. Jogendra S/o Vestam, aged 40 years. IS.Rajkumar S/o Gangaram, aged 47 years. 19-Abhay Ram S/o Anantram aged 63 years. 20.Bahadur S/o Saartiko aged 57 years. 21. Gajpati S/o Piladau aged 45 years. 22. Setkumar S/o Piladau, aged 45 years. 23.Haldhar S/o Atamaram aged 55 years. 24.Devanand S/o Nankiram aged 40 years. Occupation-Cultivator/Agriculturist, all R/o Village PatrapaIi/Kotmaar Tahsil & District Raigarh (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Collector/Incharge Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh , Raigarh (CG). 3. Land Acquisition OfEcer/S.D.O. Raigarh, Raigarh (CG). 4. Managing Director, Jila Vyapar & Udyog Kendra Raigarh, Raigarh (CG), (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) CSB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aenihotri, J.) Present : Miss Deepali Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25l" day ofApril, 2008) 1. The petitioners impugn the award dated 07.10.2005 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Land Acquisition Officer/Sub Divisional Officer under the provisions ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894'). RESPONDENTS : ^. s-^ 16-, 4- 2. The brief facts, in nutshell are, the petitioners are the Bhumi Swami of the lands, situated at Village Pathrapali/Kotmar Block, Tahsil and District Raigarh (CG). The State Govemment published a notification dated 07.05.2003, under section 4, sub section (1) ofthe Act, 1894 for the purpose of acquisition of the land, stated therein. Thereafter, a declaration under section 6 ofthe Act, 1894, was published on 12.09.2003. 3. After considering objections of the interested persons, pursuant to notices given under sections 8 and 9, fhe award was passed under the provisions of the Act, 1894 on 07.10.2005 (Annexure P/l) and possession ofthe lands in question, thereofwas taken over. 4. The petitioners challenge the validity ofthe award dated 07.10.2005 passed under the Act, 1894, in this petition, filed on 24.07.2006, much after the award was passed and the possession of the lands in question, was taken by the govemment. 5. It is not disputable that possession ofthe land in question has been taken and the same vest absolutely in the govemment free from all encumbrances. 6. The question of law with regard to maintainability of the writ petition after award has been passed and possession of the land has been taken, is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. After taking over the possession of the land, the land absolutely vest in the govemment free from all encumbrances, fherefore, the writ under Article 226 ofthe Constitution is normally not maintamable. 7. In the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industi-ial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors , 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 * 1996 (ll)SCC 501 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 to quash the notification under Section 4 (1) and declaration undter Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When fhe 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 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 leamed Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground oflaches." 8. In the matter of State ofRajsthan & Ors. v. D.R. Laxmi & Ors. , it was held as under: "9. .... 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 in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. ..." 9. In the matter ofMunicipal Council, Ahmednagar & Anr. v. Shah Hyder Beig & ors. , it was held as under: m "17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding 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.)...." lO.Recently, in the matter of Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Rajsthan & Ors. , 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 ofdelay and laches. ll.Applying the above well settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe present case, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable as no extraordinary or exceptional grounds exist. However, it is open to the petitioners to make a JT 1996 (9) SC 327 2000 (2) SCC 48 JT 2008 (2) SC 280 reference under the provisions ofsection 18 ofthe Act, 1894, ifso advised. At the request, if the reference is made within a period of four weeks, the delay shall not come in the way ofthe petitioners. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- SatishK.Agmbotn Judge