^^OB '^'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition No. 6328 of 2005 Rajesh Agrawal, S/o Shri Bhagwan Das Agrawal, aged about 35 years, R/o Nayaganj, Raigarh Tehsil and District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. The Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3. Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)^ Raigarh, Collectorate., Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4. District Industries Centre, Raigarh Through its General Manager, Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5. M/s Visa Industrial Limited, Through its Executive Director, Visa House, 8/10, Alipore Road, Kolkata, West Bengal. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ENDIA) fSB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Asnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.l to 5. Shri S.K. Mitra, Advocate with Shri B.D. Guru and Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocates for the respondent No. 6. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25th day ofApriI, 2008) 1. The petitioner impugns the notification dated 07.05.2003 (Annexure P/6) published under section 4(1) ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894') and declaration dated 12.09.2003 (Annexure P/7) published under the provisions of section 6 ofthe Act, 1894, without challenging the award dated 07.10.2005 (Annexure P/8). 2. The brief facts, in nutshell are, the petitioner is the Bhumi Swami of land bearing Khasra No. 202/11 area 0.405 hectare, situated at Village Pathrapali, 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 ofthe interested persons, pursuant to a notice given under sections 8 and 9, the award was passed under the provisions of the Act, 1894 on 07.10.2005 (Annexure P/8) and possession ofthe lands in question, thereofwas taken over. 4. The petitioner challenges the validity ofthe notification issued under section 4 (1) and declaration dated 12.09.2003 published under the provisions of section 6 of the Act, 1894, without challenging the validity of the award dated 07.10.2005 in this petition, filed on 13.12.2005 i.e. much after the award was passed. 5. It is not disputable that possession ofthe land in question thereafter has been taken and the same vest absolutely in the govemment free from all encumbrances. It is evident from the possession.certificate dated 13.07.2006. 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. Afiter taking over the possession of the land, the land absolutely vest in the govemment free from all encumbrances, therefore, the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is normally not maintainable. 7. In the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial 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 proceedings have become fmal, 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 ' 1996(11)8cc501 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 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.2, 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.3, 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 proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken by thisCourt and in one ofthe 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 fmal, the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground ofdelay and laches. ll.Applying the above well settled principles of law to the facts ofthe present case, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable as no extraordinary or exceptional grounds exist. However, it is open to the petitioner to make a 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 petitioner. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 2 JT 1996 (9) SC 327 3 2000 (2) SCC 48 4 JT 2008 (2) SC 280