The court emphasized the importance of timely filing of writ petitions and upheld the validity of the exercise of power under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Notice and Urgency Clause - The court held that the High Court was unjustified in allowing the writ petition challenging the dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. It also held that the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches due to the delay in filing the petition.
Fact of the Case:

The land was acquired for the purpose of construction of the Tehsil office building and staff quarters. Writ petitions were filed questioning the validity of the exercise of power under Section 17(4) and claiming interest for part of the land.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the High Court was unjustified in allowing the writ petition challenging the dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. It also held that the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches due to the delay in filing the petition.
Issues: Validity of the exercise of power under Section 17(4) and the delay in filing the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the High Court was unjustified in allowing the writ petition challenging the dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. It also held that the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches due to the delay in filing the petition.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed without costs.

ORDER

1. Though notice has been served on the respondents, no one has appeared in person or through counsel.

2. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act) was published on 16-7-1970 acquiring Ac. 2.02 dec. of land in Surveys Nos. 2309-2316, 2318, 2501, 2506-10, 2530-32 situated at Village Pubakhand for the purpose of construction of the Tehsil office building and staff quarters at Niali. Along with the said notification, the appellant invoked the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 27-4-1972. Notice under Sections 9 and 10 was published in the locality in December 1975 and possession of the land was taken on 16-12-1976. Sometime in 1977 OJC No. 43 of 1977 was filed questioning the validity of the exercise of power under Section 17(4) dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. Similarly, some other owners filed OJC No. 1573 of 1978, claiming interest for part of the land pursuant to a sale made after the notification namely in November, 1973. Both the writ petitions were allowed by the High Court on the ground that there was no justification to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A and public purpose would have been served by allowing the claimants to submit their objections.

3. As regards the second writ petition, namely, OJC No. 1573 of 1978, the petitioner therein cannot raise this objection because he is a subsequent purchaser and that the High Court was unjustified in allowing the writ petition.

4. As regards OJC No. 43 of 1977, in view of the fact that the notification was issued as early as on 16-7-1970, the writ petition having been filed after 7 years, the High Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches. We, therefore, hold that the High Court has not properly exercised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution in upsetting the notification dated 16-12-1970 after a lapse of 7 years.

5. The appeals are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without costs.

For Citation: 1995(5) SCC 583

Click Here to Read the rest of this document