c^ ilIt ^ ^~> IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(C) N0. /2011. PETITIONER ^-^. RESPONDENTS f .^A^ ^'.•h^: (: ^ ^y -^y / c<? '/^7 ^"'^ / ^yy <f^ / Jalaram Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Through its President Narendra Davra, S/o Shri Maganlal Davra, Niranjan Graphics, Pushpak Apartment, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) //Versus// /1. The Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The Collector and Ex-Officio Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3. Chhattisgarh Housing Board Through- Executive Engineer, Division -1, Hirapur (Jarwai), Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ^ 4. The Sub-Divisiojial Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WMT/ORDER/DIRECTJON HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 2527 OF 2011 Jalaram Co-operative Housing Society Limited Versus The Secretary, Revenue Department & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Raghuvansh Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Dy. Advocate General for the State/ Respondents No.1, 2 & 4. Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 11th day of May, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 21.07.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) -cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, in Land Acquisition Case No.60/A-82/1988-1989 (Executive Engineerv. JalaramGrih Nirman Samiti). 3. Learned counsel appearing for thre petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Cooperative Housing Society and registered under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 752, 754/2, 757/1 & 759/2, total area admeasuring 7.899 hectare (79023 sq. meters). 4. According to the petitioner, on 31.03.1989, the respondent authorities issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act, 1894") for the purpose of w / sf f r" yy'" j ^,,"|-| j •^•^ M \\ Chhattisgarh Housing Board. Accordingly, the award was passed on 08.03.1991 (Annexure P-1). In the said award, the land ofthe petitioner society was excluded from the acquisition. However, all of a sudden, the Land Acquisition Officer sent the proposal for acquisition of land in question by passing the supplementary award. Accordingly, the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without following the basic principles of naturat justice. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner submitted representation before the respondent authorities on various occasions, but the same does not fructify. According to the petitioner, the impugned award is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, as the same has been passed after lapse of more than 19 years and there was no whisper with regard to urgencyin acquiring the land in question. The impugned supplementary award dated 21.07.2009 has been passed to deprive the petitioner from its legitimate expectation. Thus, this petition. On perusal of the supplementary award dated 21.07.2009, it is clear that the land bearing Khasca No. 752, 754/2, 757/1 and 759/2, total area admeasuring 7.899 hectares i.e. 79023 sq. mts. belonging to the petitioner/Society was notified in the publication of notification for acquisition of the land under section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 on 31.03.1989. The notification under section 17(1) of the Act, 1894 was also published on the same date. Thereafter, declaration under the provisions of section 6(1) of the Act, 1894 was published on 31.03.1989. The award could not be passed in view of the fact that the said land was pending consideration in ._._,./<;: ^^ ^ S^% 1 tl^ ^ 7. ceiling proceedings which was released subsequently. Accordingly, the supplementary award with regard to the land in dispute, as aforestated, was passed on 21.7.2009.The statement of the petitioner that there was no whisper, is contrary to the facts as there was a proper publication under section 4(1), 17(1) and declaration under section 6(1) of the Act, 1894. The petitioner did not take any step by questioning the same. Thereafter, the compensation has been determined, the impugned award was passed and land vested in the State Government. The Instant petition is filed on 02.05.2011 challenging the impugned supplementary award dated 21.7.2009 on the ground that there was no information with regard to acquisition of the tand. The statement is unsubstantiated andcontrary to the facts as is clearly evident from the supplementary award dated 21.7.2009 (Annexure P/7). The petitioner has suppressed material facts by not disclosing and enclosing the notifications published under section 4(1), 17(1) and thereafter, declaration published under section 6(1) of the Actr 1894. There is a clear mention in the impugned supplementary award about the publication of the notification as well as declaration, rnade under the provisions of the Act, 1894. Thus, no petition seeking revocation of the impugned award, at this stage, is maintainable. • It is well settled principle of law that challenge to the award, without questioning validity of the notifications, declaratioh, prior to passing of the award, is not maintainable. The petitioner slept over its right for a long period, even after passing of the award. '^^\ ^—^. ./'?B- ;.K 4 ~ The petitioner did nothing during the acquisition proceedings and even after passing the award. 8. It is well settled principle of law that a writ petition questioning of the award is not maintainable as after taking over the possession of the land the same vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Even under section 48 of the Act, 1894, the State Authority also cannot withdraw from acquisition after possession has been taken over. 9. In the matter o^ Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Others1, 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 India 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 laches." 10. In the matter of State of Rajasthan & Others v. D.R.Laxmi & Others , it was held as under: "9.....When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its 1 (1996) 11 SCC501 2 JT 1996(9)3c 327 :^. lll/l 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." 11. In the matter of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & another v. Shah HyderBeig & Others , 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.)...." lu gowri 12. In the matter of Swaika Properties 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. 13. No exceptional or extraordinary grounds exist or raised to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to take a departure from the well settled principles of law. 14. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge ' (2000) 2 SCC 48 ' JT 2008 (2) SCC 280 ..^r:s;