REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 11023- 11026/2010

(ARISING OUT OF CC NOS. 4610-4613/2010)

 Sawaran Lata etc. ..Petitioners  

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents

O R D E R  

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. These special leave petitions reveal a very sorry state of  

affair and make it evident that litigants are eager to abuse the  

process  of  the  Court,  having  no  idea  for  the  law  of  

limitation/delay and laches.  

2. These special leave petitions have been filed against the  

judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  

dated 30.5.2009 by which the Civil Writ Petition Nos.8794 of

2009  and  8761  of  2009  have  been  dismissed  only  on  the  

ground of delay. The Review Petitions were filed which were  

also time barred by 48 days. The same stood dismissed vide  

order  dated  25.9.2009.   These  special  leave  petitions  have  

been filed with an inordinate delay of 172 days.  Petitioners  

sought relief of quashing the land acquisition proceedings in  

respect of which the award had been made under Section 11  

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as “Act  

1894”) on 27.4.2004.   

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these petitions  

are  that  the  respondent  -  State  of  Haryana  issued  a  

notification under Section 4 of Act 1894 in respect of a huge  

chunk of land including some land of the petitioners on 2nd  

May, 2001.  Substance of the said notification was published  

in two newspapers on 5.5.2001.   The respondents issued a  

declaration under Section 6 of Act 1894 on 30.4.2002 and the  

substance  thereof  was  also  published  in  local  newspapers  

immediately thereafter.  The Land Acquisition Collector made  

an  award  on  27.4.2004  and  in  pursuance  thereof,  the  

2

respondents took possession of the land and removed the trees  

from the land of the petitioners.   

4. Petitioners  approached  the  High  Court  by  filing  Writ  

Petition  Nos.  8794/2009  and  8761/2009  on  28.5.2009  

praying  for  quashing  the  notification  dated  2.5.2001  under  

Section 4 and declaration dated 30.4.2002 under Section 6 of  

Act 1894.  The High Court dismissed both the petitions on the  

ground of delay observing that the award under Section 11 of  

Act  1894  had  already  been  made  on  27.4.2004.   Being  

aggrieved, petitioners filed Review Petitions with 48 days’ delay  

which have also been dismissed vide order dated 25.9.2009.  

These petitions have been filed with 172 days’ delay.  There is  

further delay of 37 days’ in re-filing of the same.   

5. The issue involved in these petitions is as to whether the  

acquisition proceedings can be challenged at a belated stage.  

The  issue  is  no  more  res  integra as  the  issue  has  been  

considered by this Court time and again.  

3

6. When a person challenges Section 4 Notification on any  

ground, it  should be challenged within a reasonable period,  

and if  the  acquisition  is  challenged  at  a  belated  stage,  the  

petition  deserves  to  be  dismissed  only  on  this  count.  (Vide  

Hari Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1984 SC 1020).  

7. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in  Aflatoon & Ors.  

Vs.  Lt.  Governor,  Delhi  & Ors. AIR  1974  SC 2077,  while  

dealing with the issue, observed as under:–

“.... to have sat on the 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.”

8. Same view has been reiterated by this Court observing  

that acquisition proceedings should be challenged before the  

same attain finality, in State of Mysore Vs. V.K. Kangan AIR  

4

1975 SC 2190;  PT.  Girdharan Prasad Missir  Vs.  State of  

Bihar (1980) 2 SCC 83; Bhoop Singh Vs.  Union of India AIR  

1992  SC  1414;  State  of  Orissa  Vs.  Dhobei Sethi  &  Anr.  

(1995) 5 SCC 583;  State of Maharashtra Vs.  Digambar AIR  

1995 SC 1991;  State of  Tamil  Nadu Vs.  L.  Krishnan AIR  

1996 SC 497; and  C. Padma & Ors.  Vs. Dy. Secretary to  

Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 627.  

9. In  Municipal  Corporation  of  Greater  Bombay  Vs.  

Industrial  Development Investment Co.  Pvt.  Ltd.  & Ors.  

AIR 1997 SC 482, this Court observed as under:–

“If the interested person allows the grass  to  grow  under  his  feet  by  allowing  the  acquisition proceedings to go on and reach its  terminus in the award and possession is taken  in  furtherance  thereof  and  vest  in  the  State  free  from  all  encumbrances,  the  slumbered  interested  person  would  be  told  off  the  gates of the Court that his grievance should  not be entertained when there is inordinate  delay in filing the writ petition and when all  steps  taken  in  the  acquisition  proceedings  have become final, the Court should be loath  to quash the notifications. (Emphasis added)

5

10. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Rajasthan &  

Ors. Vs. D.R. Laxmi & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 445, wherein this  

Court has held that even the void proceedings need not be set  

at naught if  the party has not approached the Court within  

reasonable  time,  as  judicial  review  is  not  permissible  at  a  

belated stage. This Court held as under:

“……Delay in challenging the notification was  fatal and writ petition entails with dismissal on  grounds of laches. It is thus, well-settled law  that when there is inordinate delay in filing the  writ petition and when all steps taken in the  acquisition proceedings have become final, the  Court  should  be  loathe  to  quash  the  notifications……..The order or action, if ultra  vires the power, becomes void and it does  not confer any right.  But the action need  not  necessarily  be  set  at  naught  in  all  events.  Though the  order  may be  void,  if  the  party  does  not  approach  the  Court  within reasonable time,  which is always a  question  of  fact  and  have  the  order  invalidated  or  acquiesced  or  waived,  the  discretion of the Court has to be exercised  in a reasonable manner. When the discretion  has  been conferred  on  the  Court,  the  Court  may in appropriate case decline to grant the  relief, even if it holds that the order was void.  The net result is that extraordinary jurisdiction  of  the  Court  may  not  be  exercised  in  such  circumstances.” (Emphasis Added)

6

11. Similar  view  has  been  reiterated  by  this  Court  in  

Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors.  

AIR  2003  SC  234;  and  Haryana  State  Handloom  &  

Handicrafts Corporation Ltd. Vs. Jain School Society AIR  

2004 SC 850.

12. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioners  

that they had not been aware of acquisition proceedings as the  

only ground taken in the writ petition has been that substance  

of  the  notification  under  Section  4  and  declaration  under  

Section 6 of Act 1894 had been published in the newspapers  

having no wide circulation. Even if, the submission made by  

the petitioners is accepted, it cannot be presumed that they  

could not be aware of acquisition proceedings for the reason  

that very huge chunk of  land belonging to large number of  

tenure holders had been notified for acquisition.  Therefore, it  

should  have  been  a  talk  of  the  town.  Thus,  it  cannot  be  

presumed that  petitioners  could  not  have  knowledge  of  the  

acquisition proceedings.  

7

13. In such circumstances, we do not find any fault with the  

impugned judgment and order. The petitions are dismissed on  

the ground of delay.   

………………………………J. (J.M. PANCHAL)

……………………………….J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi, April 01, 2010

8