Judgment :

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. These special leave petitions reveal a very sorry state of affair and make it evident that litigants are eager to abuse the process of the Court, having no idea for the law of limitation/delay and laches.

2. These special leave petitions have been filed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 30.5.2009 by which the Civil Writ Petition Nos.8794 of 2009 and 8761 of 2009 have been dismissed only on the ground of delay. The Review Petitions were filed which were also time barred by 48 days. The same stood dismissed vide order dated 25.9.2009. These special leave petitions have been filed with an inordinate delay of 172 days. Petitioners sought relief of quashing the land acquisition proceedings in respect of which the award had been made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as "Act 1894") on 27.4.2004.

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these petitions are that the respondent State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of Act 1894 in respect of a huge chunk of land including some land of the petitioners on 2nd May, 2001. Substance of the said notification was published in two newspapers on 5.5.2001. The respondents issued a declaration under Section 6 of Act 1894 on 30.4.2002 and the substance thereof was also published in local newspapers immediately thereafter. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award on 27.4.2004 and in pursuance thereof, the respondents took possession of the land and removed the trees from the land of the petitioners.

4. Petitioners approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition Nos. 8794/2009 and 8761/2009 on 28.5.2009 praying for quashing the notification dated 2.5.2001 under Section 4 and declaration dated 30.4.2002 under Section 6 of Act 1894. The High Court dismissed both the petitions on the ground of delay observing that the award under Section 11 of Act 1894 had already been made on 27.4.2004. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed Review Petitions with 48 days' delay which have also been dismissed vide order dated 25.9.2009. These petitions have been filed with 172 days' delay. There is further delay of 37 days' in re-filing of the same.

5. The issue involved in these petitions is as to whether the acquisition proceedings can be challenged at a belated stage. The issue is no more res integra as the issue has been considered by this Court time and again.

6. When a person challenges Section 4 Notification on any ground, it should be challenged within a reasonable period, and if the acquisition is challenged at a belated stage, the petition deserves to be dismissed only on this count. (Vide Hari Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1984 SC 1020).

7. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Aflatoon & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 2077, while dealing with the issue, observed as under:-

".... to have sat on the fence and allowed the government to complete the acquisition on the basis that notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to attack the notification on the grounds which were available to them at the time when the notification was published, would be putting a premium of dilatory tactics. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the petitioner."

8. Same view has been reiterated by this Court observing that acquisition proceedings should be challenged before the same attain finality, in State of Mysore Vs. V.K. Kangan AIR 1975 SC 2190; PT. Girdharan Prasad Missir Vs. State of Bihar (1980) 2 SCC 83; Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 1414; State of Orissa Vs. Dhobei Sethi & Anr. (1995) 5 SCC 583; State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar AIR 1995 SC 1991; State of Tamil Nadu Vs. L. Krishnan AIR 1996 SC 497; and C. Padma & Ors. Vs. Dy. Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 627.

9. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Industrial Development Inv