Case: New Okhla Industrial Devt.Auth Vs. Harkishan (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

hurriedly planted at later dates only to circumvent the land acquisition proceedings.21. As already stated above, the competent authority in compliance with the directions given by this Court in Om Prakash case in the light of observations made therein having considered the evidence placed on record and after hearing the parties, recorded findings and held that it was not feasible to release the lands of the appellants from acquisition. From the impugned judgment of the High Court it is clear that the High Court kept in view the scope and judicial review in dealing with the impugned order dated 3-12-1999, passed by the competent authority. In CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [(1983) 4 SCC 392] this Court, while stating that by now, the parameters of the Courts power of judicial review of administrative or executive action or decision and the grounds on which the Court can interfere with the same are well settled, proceeded to say further in para 11, thus: (SCC p. 402)"11... Indisputably, it is a settled position that if the action or decision is perverse or is such that no reasonable body of persons, properly informed, could come to or has been arrived at by the authority misdirecting itself by adopting a wrong approach or has been influenced by irrelevant or extraneous matters the Court would be justified in interfering with the same."In the same decision it is also stated that in examining the validity of an order in such matters the test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-making process and not the decision itself. From this decision it is also clear that when choices are open to the authority it is for that authority to decide upon the choice and not for the court to substitute its view. The High Court keeping in view the scope of judicial review in such matters considered the respective contentions raised before it. On finding that the authority passed the impugned order dated 3-12-1999 on proper consideration of the evidence placed before it and after hearing the parties in the light of the directions given and observations made by this Court in the case of Om Prakash did not consider it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order. We do not find any good or valid reason so as to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the order passed by the authority."10. It becomes clear from the above that in the first round of litigation, when acquisition was challenged by the respondents, they failed in their attempt. At that time, not only declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been passed, the writ petitions were also dismissed by the High Court on August 24, 1995. Thereafter, possession of the land was taken on November 18, 1995. Subsequently, the award was also passed on August 17, 1996. This Court passed the judgment dated July 15, 1998 thereby affirming the judgment of the High Court. No doubt, event of the passing of the award dated August 17, 1996 had taken place during pendency of the appeals in this Court. Fact remains that this was not questioned at the time of arguments advanced by the parties. Even for a moment it is accepted that the subject matter of the civil appeals in the first round of litigation in this Court was validity of notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, what is to be borne in mind is that the entire gamut of controversy was gone into and the only permission which was given to the respondents was to make a suitable representation before the appropriate State authorities under Section 48(1) of the Act.11. More importantly, when the respondents made the representation, it was dealt with and rejected by the State Government vide order dated December 03, 1999. At that time, award had been passed. However, in the second round of writ petitions preferred by the respondents, they chose to challenge only Office Order dated December 03, 1999 vide which their representation under Section 48 of the Act had been rejected and it never dawned on them to challenge the validity of the award on the ground that the same was not passed within the prescribed period of limitation. As noted above, in the second round of litigation also, the respondents failed in their attempt, inasmuch as, this Court put its imprimatur to the rejection order dated December 03, 1999 vide its judgment dated March 12, 2003. At that time, even the possession of land had been taken. If the respondents wanted to challenge the validity of the award on the ground that it was passed beyond the period of limitation, they should have done so immediately and, in any case, in the second round of writ petitions filed by them. Filing fresh writ petition challenging the validity of the award for the first time in the year 2004 would, therefore, not only be barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but would also be barred on the doctrine of laches and delays as well.12. There is yet another serious infirmity in the impugned judgment. In the instant case, the land was acquired by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the requirement of filing the objections under Section 5A of the Act. This action on the part of the Government was upheld by this Court in the first round of litigation. Once possession is taken under Section 17(1) of the Act, Section 11A is not even attracted and, therefore, acquisition proceedings would not lapse on failure to make award within the period prescribed therein. This is so held in Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 1993(3) R.R.R. 597 : (1993) 4 SCC 369 , which view is affirmed in Awadh Bihari Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., 1995(3) R.R.R. 445 : (1995) 6 SCC 31.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]10. It becomes clear from the above that in the first round of litigation, when acquisition was challenged by the respondents, they failed in their attempt. At that time, not only declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been passed, the writ petitions were also dismissed by the High Court on August 24, 1995. Thereafter, possession of the land was taken on November 18, 1995. Subsequently, the award was also passed on August 17, 1996. This Court passed the judgment dated July 15, 1998 thereby affirming the judgment of the High Court. No doubt, event of the passing of the award dated August 17, 1996 had taken place during pendency of the appeals in this Court. Fact remains that this was not questioned at the time of arguments advanced by the parties. Even for a moment it is accepted that the subject matter of the civil appeals in the first round of litigation in this Court was validity of notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, what is to be borne in mind is that the entire gamut of controversy was gone into and the only permission which was given to the respondents was to make a suitable representation before the appropriate State authorities under Section 48(1) of the Act.11. More importantly, when the respondents made the representation, it was dealt with and rejected by the State Government vide order dated December 03, 1999. At that time, award had been passed. However, in the second round of writ petitions preferred by the respondents, they chose to challenge only Office Order dated December 03, 1999 vide which their representation under Section 48 of the Act had been rejected and it never dawned on them to challenge the validity of the award on the ground that the same was not passed within the prescribed period of limitation. As noted above, in the second round of litigation also, the respondents failed in their attempt, inasmuch as, this Court put its imprimatur to the rejection order dated December 03, 1999 vide its judgment dated March 12, 2003. At that time, even the possession of land had been taken. If the respondents wanted to challenge the validity of the award on the ground that it was passed beyond the period of limitation, they should have done so immediately and, in any case, in the second round of writ petitions filed by them. Filing fresh writ petition challenging the validity of the award for the first time in the year 2004 would, therefore, not only be barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but would also be barred on the doctrine of laches and delays as well.There is yet another serious infirmity in the impugned judgment. In the instant case, the land was acquired by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the requirement of filing the objections under Section 5A of the Act. This action on the part of the Government was upheld by this Court in the first round of litigation. Once possession is taken under Section 17(1) of the Act, Section 11A is not even attracted and, therefore, acquisition proceedings would not lapse on failure to make award within the period prescribed therein. This is so held in Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 1993(3) R.R.R. 597 : (1993) 4 SCC 369  , which view is affirmed in Awadh Bihari Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., 1995(3) R.R.R. 445 : (1995) 6 SCC 31.