A writ petition challenging a Section 4 Notification or Section 6 Declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches if the challenge is not made within a reasonable time.

1. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings including the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"), the Declaration made under Section 6 and the Award dated 27-12-95 passed under Section 11 of the Act, contained in Annexures 2 to 4, respectively.

2. Mr. S. N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this case is fully covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1998 Raj 202 . However, Mr. Kawadia has taken a preliminary objection that this case does not fall within the ambit of the said judgment for the reason that it is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. Section 4 Notification issued in February, 1990 and Section 6 Declaration made on May 17, 1994 and the Award made on 29-2-96, had been challenged by the writ petition at a very belated stage and, thus, this petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches.

3. It is settled proposition of law that when a person challenges Section 4 Notification, on any ground, it should be challenged within reasonable period and if the acquisition is challenged at a belated stage, tha petition deserves to be dismissed only on this count. In Hari Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1984 SC 1020 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been held that where a large area of land is acquired and the plots which are subject to acquisition belong to large number of persons, if other persons have challenged the acquisition proceedings it is difficult to believe that appellant was not aware of the initiation of the acquisition proceedings as the acquisition of the said land would be the talk of the town in a short time and if the person interested failed to approach the writ Court within reasonable period, the petition should fail only on the ground of delay.

4. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 2077 , has observed as under :

"...........to have not sat in fence and allowed the Government to complete the acquisition on the basis that notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 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."

5. Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. V. K. Kangan, AIR 1975 SC 2190 , wherein it was observed that respondent was not entitled to challenge the validity of Section 4 Notification after an unreasonable lapse of time. 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 its validity within a reasonable time of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act.

6. In Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 852 , the Apex Court has held that even if the landowner continues in possession of the land then that fact could not be a ground to justify the condonation of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner to challenge it at a belated stage.

7. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development & Investment Com pany Pvt. Ltd., 1996 (11) SCC 501 , the Apex Court has held that once the land acquisition proceedings are completed and becomes final, it is not open to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of non-compliance with any statutory requirement whatsoever. While deciding the case, reliance had been placed upon a large number of judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly in State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Krishnan, 1996 (1) SCC 250; State of Orissa v. Dhobei Sethi, 1995 (5) SOC 583 ; State