Challenges to land acquisitions should be made within a reasonable time and must demonstrate a lack of public purpose for the acquisition.

JUDGMENT

Krishna S Dixit, J. - Petitioners claiming to be the successors-in-interest of one Mr.L.Narasimhaiah, have filed this petition 17.10.2012 for laying a challenge to the 1985 acquisition of the subject land fairly described in the schedule.

2. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Shashi Kiran Shetty falters the acquisition arguing that: the land is not required for the purpose for which it is acquired because the earlier proposals for acquisitions have been already dropped and the Respondent-Society itself has said about non-requirement; it is a land granted to Scheduled Caste persons under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and therefore, cannot be acquired casually; possession continues with the Petitioners till date and therefore, acquisition has lapsed u/s 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; the 8th Respondent-middlemen namely C.V.L.Shastry was not their land owners attorney and he has not handed the compensation received from the government/society. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the Petition.

3. After service of notice, the State and SLAO have entered appearance through the learned AGA; the Respondent-BDA & its officials are represented by their Panel Counsel; the Respondent-Housing Society speaks through its Panel Advocate; the State and the BDA have filed their Statement of Objections opposing the Petition controverting the stand of Petitioners. The Panel Advocate for the Housing Society has filed a Memo offering to pay additional sum of compensation with interest for buying peace. All the advocates make vehement submissions in justification of the acquisition on merits, on enormous delay & latches and non-impleadment of allottees of the sites.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines indulgence for the following reasons:

(A) AS TO DELAY & LATCHES:

(i) The subject acquisition process was initiated vide Preliminary Notification dated 16.01.1985 issued u/s 4(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894; the same was published in the Official Gazette on 21.01.1985; this was followed by Section 5 enquiry after due notice to the then khatedars; the Final Notification u/s 6(1) was issued on 14.02.1986 and it was gazetted on 28.02.1986; the award was passed on 12.08.1987; the government granted approval in December 1987; possession of the land was taken over by the government by issuing Section 16(2) Notification and later, the same has been delivered to the Respondent-Housing Society, which got the approved sanctioned plan and formed the layouts; the Society has executed & registered a Relinquishment Deed dated 5.6.1996 comprising the petition land in favour of BDA; all that would enure to the benefit of allottees of the sites in the layouts concerned; the petition is filed on 17.10.2012 and thus, there is an inordinate delay of more than a quarter century in approaching the court with no plausible explanation therefor.

(ii) The Apex Court and this Court have time & again frowned upon the belated challenges to the acquisition of lands, more particularly when such acquisitions are for the housing purposes, the population of the country having enormously bulged and the right to meaningful life and right to residence being the constitutional guarantees. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Industrial Development Investment Company Private Limited (1996) 11 SCC 501, it is observed:

'29. It is thus well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the court should loathe to quash the notifications...

35. ...Such a belated writ petition, therefore, was rightly rejected by the learned single Judge on the ground of gross delay and laches. The respondent-writ petitioners can be said to have waiv