IMPORTANT POINTS
1. After award is passed no Writ Petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act or against acquisition proceedings.
2. The equitable doctrine, namely, delay defects equity has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The discretionary relief can be had provided one has not by his act or conduct given a go-bye to his rights.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1884-Section 6-Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966-Section 126(4)-Writ petition against acquisition notice after passing award-Maintainability of-Notification for acquisition issued in 1971-Award passed in 1976-Writ filed in 1992-In meanwhile award was also sought to be executed-High Court set aside award and directed handingover possession of land to writ petitioner-Held: after award no Writ petition can be filed challenging acquisition notice-Equitable doctrine of delay defeats equity has its fullest application in matter of grant relief under Article 226-Writ petition liable to be dismissed on account of delay and laches-High Courts judgment set aside.
       Held : After the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. (Para 15)
       While it is true that the plea of limitation ought to be raised at the first available opportunity but that does not mean and imply that the party raising it even during the course of hearing would be barred therefrom. Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Time barred claim would not even be entertained by a Civil Court without there being any opportunity of filing a pleading by the respondents or the defendants in a civil suit. (Para 6)
       While no period of limitation is fixed but in the normal course of events, the period, the party is required for filing a civil proceeding ought to be the guiding factor. While it is true that this extraordinary jurisdiction is available to mitigate the sufferings of the people in general but it is not out of place to mention that this extraordinary jurisdiction has been conferred on to the law courts under Article 226 of the Constitution on a very sound equitable principle. Hence, the equitable doctrine, namely, delay defects equity has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The discretionary relief can be had provided one has not by his act or conduct given a go-bye to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant and this being the basic tenet of law, the question of grant of an order as has been passed and in the matter as regards restoration of possession upon cancellation of the notification does not and cannot arise. (Para 12)
       (ii) Constitution of India-Article 226-Land Acquisition Act, 1884-Section 6-Writ petition-Maintainability of-Petition challenging acquisition notice after award that too after 21 years of acquisition notice -After award acquisition notice cannot be challenged in Writ petition -Further Writ petition vitiated by laches and delay. (Paras 6, 12 & 15)

JUDGMENT

Banerjee, J.-Leave granted.

2. The Municipal Coporation, Ahmednagar and another are in appeal against an order of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Writ Petition No. 1156 of 1993, wherein the Writ Petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, Shah Hyder Beig and two others was allowed and the Municipal Corporation was directed to make over vacant possession of the land bearing CTS No. 5761-A situated at Ahmednagar to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of the Judgment. The High Court further directed the writ petitioners to refund the amount of compensation received by them for the acquired land within a period of four weeks from the date of handing over the possession of the land to them by the respondent Corporation along with certain consequential orders. The facts of the matter being singularly singular ought to be adverted to at this juncture.

3. The facts depict that the Writ Petition before the High Court was filed on 21st October, 1992, for setting aside the Award dated 26th April, 1976 in regard to CTS 5761 of Ahmednagar Town. Subsequent thereto, however, the Writ Petition was amended for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the notification dated 15th May, 1971 issued under Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994. It is on this petition that the High Court made the rule absolute and directed making over of the vacant possession of the land under acquisition within a period of three months from the date of the Judgment as noticed above. The

appellants on grant special leave to appeal are before this Court.

4. While issuing notice on 17th December, 1998, this Court was pleased to grant an interim stay of operation of the Impugned Judgment of the High Court and also directed filing of counter and rejoinder affidavits. It is in terms of this direction of the Court that the matter was taken up for hearing on 7.12.1999 and also today.

5. Upon however, hearing the submissions on behalf of the parties herein, we do feel it expedient to record that the matter can be dealt with finally on a short ground to wit, the time element. While addressing on behalf of the petitioners herein Mr. Salve learned Solicitor General severely criticised judgment of the High Court contended that the High Court should have taken note of the element of delay in moving the Court. Mr. Salve pointed out that whereas the notice for acquisition was issued in 1971 and the Award was passed and possession was taken in the year 1976, the Writ Petition was filed in the year 1992 i.e. to say after expiry of 21 years from the date of notification and 16 years from the date of making over possession and the Award.

6. Incidentally this point to delay and laches was also raised before the High Court and on this score the High Court relying upon the decision in Abhyankar s case (N.L. Abhyankar v. Union of India1) observed that it is not an inflexible rule that whenever there is delay, the Court must and necessarily refuse to entertain the petition filed after a period of three years or more which is the normal period of limitation for filing a suit. The Bombay High Court in Abhyankar s case (supra) stated that the question is one of discretion to be followed in the facts and circumstances of each case and further stated :-

"The real test for sound exercise of discretion by the High Court in this regard is not the physical running of time as such but the test is whether by reason of delay, there is such negligence on the part of the petitioner so as to infer that he has given up his claim or where the petitioner has moved the Writ Court, the rights of the third parties have come into being which should not be allowed to disturb unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay".

In the judgment Impugned in this appeal the High Court stated :-

"It may be stated that in the