A third party has no locus to challenge land acquisition proceedings and only the owners of the land can seek compensation. Inordinate delay in filing a writ petition is a ground for refusing exercise of discretion in favor of the land owners. The objections raised regarding the validity of the acquisition and the award were found to be without merit.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner No. 1 in the present writ petition is also petitioner in W.P. No. 108306/2014 and she has filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the present writ petition also.

2. An application is filed seeking discharge of minor guardianship. The cause shown is accepted. Perused the birth certificate of petitioner No. 1. She has attained majority. Petitioner No. 1 has also filed memo seeking withdrawal of the present petition. Since she has attained majority, the memo filed by her seeking withdrawal of the petition is accepted and W.P. No. 108307/2014 insofar as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

3. The land owners have questioned the final notification vide Annexure-B and E, respectively, on the ground that the proposed acquisition is without securing approval of the scheme. The petitioners have also questioned the action of the State in acquiring petition lands on the ground that the same contravenes Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “Land Acquisition Act”). The petitioners’ grievance is that there is no objective assessment of the objections tendered by the land owners under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners have also claimed that award notice is defective as the same is passed beyond stipulated period of two years and therefore, it contravenes Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. During pendency of the petition, an application was filed seeking amendment. Said application was allowed vide order dated 11.01.2023. I have gone through the amendment application tendered by the GPA holder of the petitioners. The GPA holder who happens to be the developer claims that there is an agreement with the owners. Though the amendment application is allowed, on examining the averments made in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, it is clearly forthcoming that a third party is prosecuting this writ petition.

5. A party challenging the land acquisition proceedings must establish locus. A third party in the present writ petition has no locus. Any relief qua compensation can be sought only by owners of the land in question, who have lost lands and not by a third party, who is asserting right based on mere agreements, which is not the subject matter of the writ petition.

6. Be that as it may. The question that needs consideration is whether this Court, at this juncture, can interfere and the grounds urged in the writ petition would substantiate the petitioners’ claim, which would warrant interference at the hands of this Court.

7. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Housing Board.

8. The questions raised in the captioned writ petition are to be answered in two fold. This Court has to examine as to whether the petitioners have lost locus in questioning the acquisition proceedings as they have approached this Court after an inordinate delay of three years.

A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Aflatoon and Others vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Others, 1975 (4) SCC 285 has observed as under:

“....to have sat in fence and allowed the government to complete the acquisition on the basis that notification u/s. 4 and the declaration u/S 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.”

Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Mysore vs. V.K. Kangan, 1976 (2) SCC 895 wherein it was observed as under:

“Respondent was not entitled to challenge the validity of Section 4 Notification after an unreasonable lapse of lime. If public notice, as required by Section 4 of the Act, was not given and that would per se vitiate the notification under Section 4, the person interested should have challenged i