Back
2016 Supreme(Gau) 660
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Ajit Singh, Suman Shyam, JJ.
Nabam Metung & 16 Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh & 5 Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) 3399/2016
Decided On : 08-06-2016
Subject
Land Acquisition - Challenge to Acquisition Notification
Act Referred
Headnote
Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 17 (1) and (4) - Acquisition of land - Eviction - Challenged - Acquisition of land, Mental/ Psychiatric Hospital has already been constructed - It appears that petitioners have encroached upon certain portion of acquired land and since they are now being evicted present petition has been filed by them - There is already an eviction order dated passed against them by the Estate Officer - Petitioners have also filed an appeal against the eviction order before the appellate authority – Held, land in question was acquired for construction of Mental/ Psychiatric Hospital pursuant to Gazette Notification dated - Notification was also published in the local newspapers - And now after 26 years of the publication of Notification petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge same - Maxim vigilantibus, et non dormientibus jura subveniunt which means ‘the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights’ is very much applicable in present case - Petition is accordingly dismissed.
1. Mr. T. Tony & Mr. B Arun, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh for the respondents.
2. By this petition the petitioners have challenged the Gazette Notification dated 30.3.1989 issued under Section 4 (1) read with sub-section (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Acquisition Act, 1894. By the said Notification, the State of Arunachal Pradesh proposed to acquire land described therein for the construction of Mental/ Psychiatric Hospital.
3. Admittedly, after the acquisition of land, Mental/ Psychiatric Hospital has already been constructed. It appears that the petitioners have encroached upon certain portion of the acquired land and since they are now being evicted, the present petition has been filed by them.
4. There is already an eviction order dated 19.04.2016/20.04.2016 passed against them by the Estate Officer. The petitioners have also filed an appeal against the eviction order before the appellate authority.
5. Whatever it may be, the land in question was acquired for construction of Mental/ Psychiatric Hospital pursuant to Gazette Notification dated 30.3.1989. The Notification was also published in the local newspapers. And now after 26 years of the publication of Notification, the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the same. The maxim vigilantibus, et non dormientibus jura subveniunt which means ‘the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights’ is very much applicable in the present case.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
