Waiver of the right to challenge acquisition proceedings by pursuing compensation/enhancement of compensation without challenging the notification under Section 4 and invocation of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"a. Quash Notification No. F7 (23)/95/L&B/LA/12691 dated 12.08.1997 insofar as the same pertains to the land of the Petitioners and

b. Quash Award No. 3/DCW/98-99 dated 15.09.1998 insofar as the same pertains to the land of the Petitioners

c. Direct return the land acquired by and in possession of the Respondent to the Petitioners.

d. Order such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

2. In effect the petitioner is challenging the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`Act of 1894', for short) dated August 12, 1997 and the award dated September 15, 1998 passed pursuant thereto.

3. The case of the petitioner is that his land has been acquired for the purpose of constructing a Sports School at Village Tikri Kalan, measuring approximately 25 Bighas 13 Biswas bearing Khasra Nos. 65/5/2 (0-12), 6/1 (2-8), 66/1/2/1 (2-00), 1/2/2 (2-7), 2 (4-16), 5 min (1-10) & 10-1 (2-8).

4. According to the petitioner and so contended by his counsel that the notification was issued under the emergency provision, Section 17 (1) of the Act of 1894 stating that the land was acquired for the establishment of Sports School. Till date, the land remains empty and unutilized. However, despite being paid compensation as the land in question is still unutilized for any purpose much less on the ground stated above, the land acquisition notification and the award are liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Darshan Lal Nagpal v. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2012) 2 SCC 327 and Radhe Shyam v. State of U.P., (2011) 5 SCC 553.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/LAC would submit that the present petition is an abuse of process of law for non-disclosure of complete and material facts and thus the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 38. That apart, he submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable being grossly hit by delay and laches particularly when the acquisition of land has been made in 1997 and the award has been passed in 1998 and enhanced compensation of more than Rs. 1.2 Crore has already been received by the petitioner. In support of his submission he has relied upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Aflatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governnor of Delhi and Ors., (1975) 4 SCC 285 and Kishan Das and Ors. v. State of UP and Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 240.

6. According to Mr. Pathak, the petitioner having accepted the acquisition proceedings in totality and having pursued his remedy for payment of compensation only and thereafter availing all statutory and legal remedies for seeking enhancement of compensation right up to the Supreme Court and having obtained payment of awarded compensation and enhanced compensation and still pursuing the remedy in execution, the petitioner has waived his right to challenge the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever and has acquiesced in compensation proceedings. Thus the present petition is liable to be rejected.

7. According to Mr. Pathak, the reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgments in the case of Darshan Lal Nagpal (supra) and Radhe Shyam (supra) are not applicable and clearly distinguishable on facts. According to him, even otherwise, the judgments cannot be read as a statute and cannot be applied in mathematical precision and each case has to be determined in its own facts. He qualifies his submission by filing a short note, wherein the following dates have been highlighted by him: