ORDER :

1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the notifications dated March 17, 2009 and November 9, 2009 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated May 23, 2014 passed in Writ-C No. 3217 of 2010, filed by petitioner’s husband, seeks to address that the acquisition in question having been quashed by this Court in the aforesaid case, the petitioner deserves to be granted the same relief. In order to explain the delay in filing the writ petition, he submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the acquisition. The moment she came to know, the present petition was filed as the State was seeking to take possession of the land.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, in our view, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches.

4. As to how a petition, filed after huge delay, has to be dealt with has been considered by the Courts on number of occasions and the opinion expressed is that these petitions are required to be dismissed at the threshold.

5. In New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh and others,