The necessity of tendering compensation and the assumption of possession by the acquiring authority as statutory requirements, which displaced the petitioners from claiming parity with other estate holders.

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Through the instant petition, the petitioners challenge the validity of a notification, as became issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for short called as the ‘Act of 1894’). Moreover, the petitioners also make a challenge to the validity of issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the ‘Act of 1894’.

2. The above notifications became respectively issued on 31.01.1992 (Annexure P-3) and on 29.01.1993 (Annexure P-4).

3. The makings of the above notifications resulted in an award becoming pronounced on 10.09.1998 (Annexure P-5) by the Land Acquisition Collector, U.T. Chandigarh. Therefore, the said award is also asked to be quashed and set aside.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that the acquired land measuring 4 kanals 3 marlas, as is enclosed in Khasra No. 60//40 in Hadbast No. 375, Manimajra, is situated in a thickly populated area surrounded by houses and shops. Therefore, it is contended that the parcel of land (supra) was not required to be subjected to acquisition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has also argued, that since in respect of similarly situated lands, the respondent concerned, as unfolded by Annexure P-8, proceeded to in terms of Section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short refer to as the ‘Act of 2013’), thus release those lands, as, mentioned in Annexure P-8, hence to the land owners concerned. Therefore, on parity with those estate holders qua whom the acquired lands became released, the petitioners also claim similar relief.

Reasons for rejecting the above submissions.

6. The primary reason for rejecting the above submission becomes founded upon the factum, that the instant petition is hit by gross pervasive vices of delays and laches. The reason for making the above conclusion becomes sparked from the factum, that the challenge to the afore, has been made after almost thirty years elapsing, since the launching of acquisition proceedings under the ‘Act of 1894’. Resultantly, the instant petition but on the said ground of delay and laches, is liable to be dismissed.

7. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in case titled M/s Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1996) 11 SCC 698, has in the relevant paragraph of its verdict, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, thus declared that any belated challenge, as made to the relevant fully terminated acquisition proceedings, thus is hit by the vices of delay and laches, and thereby too, the said belated motion is but required to be declared as misconstituted:

“Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings; as soon as it came to know of the acquisition, it had challenged the validity of the acquisition proceedings and, therefore, it furnishes cause of action to the petitioner. He further contends that the writ petition could not be dismissed on the ground of laches but was required to be considered on merits. We find no force in the contention. Any encumbrance created by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the State if the possession of land is already taken over after the award came to be passed. The land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances under Section 16. In Gurmukh Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (8) SCC 208, this Court had held that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to challenge the legality of the acquisition proceedings on the ground of lack of publication of the notification. In Y.N. Garg vs. State of Rajasthan, 1996 (1) SCC 284 and Sneh Prabha vs. State of U.P. 1996 (7) SCC 325, this Court had held the alienation made by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of th