The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and laches in approaching the Court can lead to the dismissal of a writ petition, especially in cases where possession of the land has been taken by the acquiring authority.

JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. Varun Sharma and Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 as well as Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

2. This writ appeal is presented by the writ petitioners against an order dated 08.04.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 696/2016 whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

3. This writ appeal was earlier dismissed by a judgment dated 28.09.2016. This Court, while dismissing the appeal, at paragraph 4 of the judgment, had observed as follows:

“4. We have perused the record of the writ petition and in the writ petition there is not a single averment that the possession of the land has not been taken. In the writ petition, there is no averment much less any proof of the fact that this land has been taken over. Therefore, we have no reason to discard clear cut finding given by the Learned Single Judge that the land has been used for development of Naya Raipur. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.”

4. Against the aforesaid judgment, the appellants had preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36272/2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 3778/2018.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 13.04.2018 observed that in column No. 3 (particulars of the cause/order against which the petition is made) of the writ petition, paragraph 4 of the application dated 29.02.2016 for grant of interim relief and paras 1.1, 1.20, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.7 of the writ appeal, the writ petitioners had made specific averments that they are in possession of the land in dispute and accordingly, holding that the aforesaid statements had escaped the attention of the Division Bench, set aside the order dated 28.09.2016 passed in the writ appeal and remanded the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law. At paragraph 15 of the judgment dated 13.04.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“15. We, however, leave all the questions including the maintainability of the writ petition on any other grounds open for its decision. Indeed, it is for the Division Bench to decide the issues, while deciding the writ appeal, uninfluenced by any of our observations made in this judgment.”

6. The case of the writ petitioners, as projected in the writ petition, is that they are agriculturists and are land owners in village Parsada, Tehsil Arang. On a request made by Naya Raipur Development Authority, Raipur, (for short, NRDA), the Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Divisional Officer, Arang, registered a case on 16.03.2011 for compulsory acquisition of total 9.62 hectares of land in 23 Khasras of village Parsada for construction of a sports village (Khel Gram).

7. Though not stated in the writ petition, in the writ appeal, it is stated that while the petitioner No. 1 holds land measuring 0.65 hectares in Khasra No. 356, petitioner No. 2 holds land measuring 0.37 hectare in Khasra No. 370, 1.88 hectares in Khasra No. 407, and 0.20 hectares in Khasra No. 419, totaling 2.45 hectares.

8. In the writ petition, the following prayers were made:

“(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the Land Acquisition Case No. 18A/82 year 2010-2011, in village Parsada, PH No. 21, Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur.

(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire land Acquisition proceedings in Land Acquisition Case No. 18A/82 year 2010-2011 in village Parsada, PH No. 21, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur.

(iii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the award dated 4/7/2012 passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Land Acquisition Case No. 18A/82 year 2010-2011, in village Parsada, PH No. 21, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur.

(iv) That, this Ho