http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DHOBEI SETHI AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/08/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (5) 583        JT 1995 (6)   624  1995 SCALE  (5)188

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       O R D E R      Though notice  has been  served on  the respondents, no one has appeared in person or through counsel.      A notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act [for short,  ‘the Act’]  was  published  on  July  16,  1970 acquiring  Ac. 2. 202 dec. of land in Survey Nos. 2309-2316, 2318, 2501,  2506-10, 2530-32  situated at village Pubakhand for the  purpose  of  construction  of  the  Tahasil  office building and  staff quarters  at Niali.  Along with the said notification, the appellant invoked the urgency clause under s. 17  (4) of  the Act dispensing with the enquiry under 5-A of the  Act. The  declaration under  s. 6  of  the  Act  was published   on April 27, 1972. Notice under ss. 9 and 10 was published in  the locality  in December, 1975 and possession of the land was taken on December 16, 1976. Sometime in 1977 O. J. C. No.43 of 1977 was filed questioning the validity of the exercise  of power  under s.17(4)  dispensing  with  the enquiry under  s. 5-A.  Similarly, some  other owners  filed O.J.C. No.1573  of 1978,  claiming interest  for part of the land pursuant  to a  sale made after the notification namely in November,  1973. Both  the writ petitions were allowed by the High Court on the ground that there was no justification to dispense with the enquiry under s. 5-A and public purpose would have  been served  by allowing the claimants to submit their objections.      As regards  the second  writ petition, namely, OJC 1573 of 1978, the  petitioner therein cannot raise this objection because he is a subsequent purchaser and that the High Court was unjustified in allowing the writ petition.      As regards OJC 43 of 1977, in view of the fact that the notification was  issued as  early as  on July 16, 1970, the writ petition  having been  filed after  7 years,  the  High court ought  to have  dismissed the  writ  petition  on  the ground of  laches. We,  therefore, hold  that the High Court has not  properly exercised  its power  under Article 226 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the  Constitution   in  upsetting   the  notification  dated December 16, 1970 after a lapse of 7 years.      The  appeal   are  accordingly   allowed  but   in  the circumstances without costs.