IMPORTANT POINTS
Challenge to acquisition proceedings of 1990 for the first time in 2004 hit by delay and laches, and Order II Rule 2, CPC.
Section 11A becomes inapplicable upon possession being taken u/s 17(1). Such acquisition proceedings would not lapse on failure to make award within the period prescribed u/s 11A.

JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J.

This appeal has a chequered history. Matter pertains to the acquisition of the land of the respondents, which was acquired way back in the year 1990. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') proposing to acquire the land of the respondents, as well as some other persons, was issued on January 05, 1991. It was followed by declaration under Section 6 issued on January 07, 1992. Even award, thereafter, was pronounced on August 17, 1996. The acquisition proceedings were challenged by the respondents by filing writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed by the High Court, and the appeal there against was dismissed by this Court also on July 15, 1998. In this first round of litigation, while dismissing the appeal, this Court left open a little window for the respondents herein by permitting them to make a representation to the State Government under Section 48(1) of the Act. The respondents, thus, made a representation for release of the land, which was considered by the State Government. The State Government, however rejected the same vide orders dated December 03, 1999. Second round of litigation started when this rejection was again challenged by the respondents by filing writ petitions. This time again attempts of the respondents failed as the writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court and those orders were affirmed by this Court vide judgment dated March 12, 2003, reported as Ved Prakash & Ors. v. Ministry of Industry, Lucknow & Anr., (2003) 9 SCC 542.

2. Undeterred by the aforesaid dismissals, the respondents started third round of litigation by approaching the High Court by way of another writ petition filed in the year 2004. This time, the validity of the award passed in the year 1996 was challenged on the ground that the said award was not passed within the period of two years as prescribed under Section 11A of the Act and, therefore, acquisition proceedings lapsed. In this attempt, the respondents have succeeded before the High Court inasmuch as vide its judgment dated June 30, 2009, the High Court has accepted the aforesaid contention of the respondents thereby allowing the writ petitions and directing the Collector to issue fresh notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and thereafter make an award under Section 11 of the Act which, according to the High Court, will cure the defect that has crept in on account of delay in making the award beyond the period prescribed under Section 11 of the Act. It is this judgment which is assailed by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, at whose behest the land in question was acquired.

3. Neat question of law which is raised is that the petition filed in the year 2004, after having lost twice, was not even maintainable as it suffered from unexplained delays and latches and was also barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. For proper appreciation of this submission, we recount the events in some detail hereinafter.

4. A notification dated January 05, 1991 was issued under the provisions of Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Act, invoking urgency provisions, to acquire about 790 bighas (496 acres) of land in village Chalera Banger, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, including the land belonging to the respondents herein, i.e. khasra No. 279 (measuring 2-13-10 bigha) and khasra No. 280 (measuring 2-6-10 bigha). The aforesaid notification was followed by issuance of declaration dated January 07, 1992 under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act. The respondents herein filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad challenging the acquisition on the ground that the emergency provision, thereby depriving them of their right to file objections under Section 5A of the Act, was illegal. This writ petition, along with certain other writ petitions, was dismissed by the High Court by common judgment dated