The principle of res judicata applies to bar subsequent challenges to notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, and delay and laches in challenging land acquisition proceedings render the petition unentertainable.

JUDGMENT

Alok Aradhe, J. - In this intra court appeal the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellants are joint owners of lands situate at Kollegala, Chamrajanagar District. Out of the aforesaid lands, 1 acre of land belonging to appellants was sought to be acquired for providing underground drainage facility to Kollegala Town. A preliminary notification dated 25.10.2014 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The aforesaid notification was published on 07.11.2014. It is pertinent to mention that appellant No. 1 filed a writ petition seeking quashment of the aforesaid notification, which was disposed of by learned Single Judge of this court by an order dated 19.01.2015 and it was inter alia held that the writ petition is not maintainable. However, the appellant No. 1 was granted the liberty to file objections and the authority was directed to consider the same.

3. Thereafter, on 26.05.2014, the Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted an enquiry and on 23.03.2015, declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 26.11.2015. Thereafter, the appellants filed a writ petition on or about 20.01.2017, in which notification as well as declaration under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act dated 25.01.2015 and 23.03.2015 were challenged. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 16.08.2021 did not entertain the challenge to the notification under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act. However, the writ petition preferred by the appellants was disposed of with a liberty to the appellants to submit an application before the Land Acquisition Officer and the Land Acquisition officer was directed to make a reference to the authority under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was not published in the manner prescribed therein inasmuch as it was not published in two daily newspapers having wide circulation. It is also submitted that usual notices were not issued to the appellants and therefore, the appellants could not participate in the enquiry. It is further submitted that the appellants cannot be deprived of their constitutional right to hold the property in a manner not known to law. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'J & K Housind Board & Another Vs. Kunwar San Jay Krishan Kaul', (2011) 10 SCC 714, Kulsum R. Nadiadwala Vs. State', 9202) 6 SCC 348, 'Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. S. Darius Shapur Chenai and Others', (2005) 7 SCC 627, 'Sri. Venkatesh vs. Sri. P. Subbaiah and Another', ILR 2007 KAR 3912, 'Kamal Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of West Bengal And Others', (2012) 2 SCC 25, Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. vs. J. Sivaprakasam and Others', (2011) 1 SCC 330, 'Union of India and Othres Vs. Gopaldas Bhagwan Das and Others', 'Chairman Indore Vikas Pradhikaran Vs. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals ltd.', (2007) 8 SCC 705, 'Competent Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory', (2005) 13 SCC 477.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. It is pertinent to note that appellant No. 1 had assailed the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, in a writ petition viz., W.P. No. 56888/2014, which was dismissed of with the following direction:

2. Petitioner's counsel states that the final notification is not yet issued. As only a preliminary notification has b