The importance of public purpose in land acquisition, the conclusive and binding effect of previous orders, and the impact of delays and laches in approaching the court.

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The petitioners earlier instituted before this Court CWP- 6171-1991, whereins, the writ petitioners craved the indulgence of this Court to accord to them the hereinafter extracted relief.

“Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notifications Annexures P/1 and P/2 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, respectively, and for the issuance of any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Through an order made on 07.11.2011, upon, the writ petition (supra), the same became dismissed. The relevant paragraph of the verdict (supra) is extracted hereinafter.

“5. Having heard learned State counsel, we are of the considered view that no case for interference in the acquisition of the respondents is made out because the Commissioner appointed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.09.1989 in CWP No. 3163 of 1989 (R- 1) visited the spot and gave a finding that although four rooms have been constructed in the four corners of the area. The exemption has been refused because it would have hampered the implementation of the development plan. Moreover, the instant petition has been filed after the announcement of the award, which would not be maintainable on account of well settled principles of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Ltd. (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig (2000) 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 698 and M/s. Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan JT 2008 (2) SC 280.”

3. Be that as it may, the petitioners, now have instituted RACW- 202-2012 in the writ petition (supra) before this Court, with a prayer therein, that the above order of dismissal, as became made, on the writ petition (supra), be reviewed.

Factual Background

4. The review applicants-petitioners also had earlier to the filing of CWP-6171-1991, thus had instituted CWP No. 3165/1989 before this Court, and thereins a challenge was also made to the notification(s) (supra). The said writ petition was disposed of through an order made thereons on 28.09.1989. The order as made on the said writ petition becomes extracted hereinafter.

“Parties counsel are agreed with Mr. A. Banerjee, Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary to Government, Haryana shall be asked to go to the spot to examine as to whether the premises of the petitioners deserve, in the scheme of things, to be exempted from acquisition and that whatever be his decision with regard to each petitioners, it shall be treated as final.

In terms of the agreement so arrived at, we direct Mr. A. Banerjee, Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary to Government, Haryana, to go to village Jhasra, which is proximate to the spot, on October 26, 1989 reaching there at 10 o'clock and then roam about in the area to see what kind of building and plots have been exempted and as to whether there is any parity of those exempted plots and buildings with those of the petitioners, descering exemption. Any of the petitioner, who may choose to be present on the spot on the aforesaid date and time, may be so and made him such suggestions as are relevant for the purpose. It is expected of Mr. Banerjee to pass a short speaking order in respect of each case. On this understanding, we dispose of this writ petition, as also the connected ones.”

5. The Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Revenue Department submitted his report (Annexure R-2), and, thereins, he did not recommend the makings of apposite exemption(s) vis-a-vis the acquired lands. However, the aggrieved petitioners concerned, rather remained dis-satisfied