ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal for setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of Patna High Court whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the acquisition of the appellant's land was set aside.

3. In furtherance of order dated 01.02.1976 issued by the State Government under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the possession of 2.66 acres land belonging to the appellant was taken and handed over to the Advance Planning and Investigating Division for the temporary use of Sone Embankment Division.

4. Although, in terms of Section 35, the maximum period for which temporary occupation of the land was three years but without passing any fresh order under Section 35 of the Act, the State Government continued to occupy the appellant's land.

5. CWJC No.10621 of 1992 filed by the appellant for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to vacate the land and hand over possession thereof to him was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 27.08.1993. In that order, the total area of land is mentioned as 2.82 acres.

6. Civil Appeal No.1689 of 1994 filed by the respondents was disposed of by this Court on 04.03.1994. This Court declined to interfere with the direction given by the High Court but gave liberty to the respondents to take steps as may be available to them under the law. While doing so, this Court took cognizance of the fact that a defective notification was issued on 01.01.1993 for the acquisition of the appellant's land.

7. At this stage, we may mention that on having come to know about the proposed acquisition of his land vide notification dated 01.01.1993, the appellant filed objections under Section 5A. However, further action was not taken in the matter and the State Government is said to have taken a decision to vacate the land and shift the office of the Sone Embankment Division to the Government premises at Maner.

8. One day before disposal of the civil appeal filed by it before this Court, the State Government issued Notification dated 03.03.1994 under Section 4(1) of the Act for the acquisition of the appellant's land measuring 3.05 acres. The same was published in the official gazette dated 16.03.1994 and in two newspapers on 04.04.1994. After one year and three months of publication of the notification in the official gazette and one year, two months and nine days of publication thereof in two newspapers, the State Government issued declaration dated 12.06.1995 under Section 6(1), which was published in the newspapers on 29.06.1995 and in the official gazette dated 12.10.1995. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated 31.01.1997. Notice under Section 12 was issued to the appellant on 05.03.1997 and possession certificate is said to have been issued on 19.03.1997.

9. In the meanwhile, the appellant filed writ petition No.2624 of 1997 questioning the acquisition proceedings. One of the grounds taken by the appellant was that the notification issued under Section 6(1) was nullity because it was issued beyond the period of one year prescribed under proviso (ii) to Section 6(1).

10. The respondents contested the writ petition mainly on the ground that the same was belated.

11. The learned Single Judge noticed the factual matrix of the case and held that the declaration issued under Section 6(1) was nullity and the delay of one year and few months in filing the writ petition was inconsequential. He accordingly quashed the acquisition proceedings.

12. The Division Bench of the High Court did not find any patent error in the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge not to decline relief to the appellant on the ground of delay but held that he was guilty of laches by observing that no explanation has been offered for the time gap between the date of publication of the declaration issued under Section 6(1) and filing of the writ petition. The Division Bench also opined that in view of Section 16 o