25 September 1996
Supreme Court
Download

STAR WIRE (I) LTD Vs STATE OF HARYANA

Bench: K. RAMASWAMY,S.B. MAJMUDAR
Case number: SLP(C) No.-020489-020489 / 1996
Diary number: 68867 / 1996


1

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

PETITIONER: M/S. STAR WIRE (INDIA) LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/09/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S.B. MAJMUDAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Punjab  & Haryana  High Court  made on April 25, 1996 in LPA No.  437/96. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,  1894 [for  short, the ’Act’] was published on June  1, 1976. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on February 16, 1977. The award was passed on July 3, 1981.  Thereafter, the  reference also  become final. The petitioner has  challenged the notification, the declaration and the  award as  illegal, it  contends that the award does not come  in the  way of  the petitioner  in filing the writ petition on  January 21,  1994. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of laches.      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 & Ors. vs.  The State  of Haryana  [J] 1995  (8) SC 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) 325], this Court had held the alienation made by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of  the notification  under Section 4(1), do not bind either  the State  Government or  the  beneficiary  for whose benefit the land  was acquired. The purchaser does not acquire any  valid title.  Even the  colour of title claimed by the  purchaser was  void. The  beneficiary is entitled to

2

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

have absolute possession free from encumbrances. In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow  through its  Chairman &  Anr. vs.  M/s Kalra Properties (P)  Ltd., Lucknow  & Ors.  {(1996) 1  SCC  124], this Court  had further  held  that  the  purchaser  of  the property, after  the notification  under  Section  4(1)  was published, is  devoid of  right to challenge the validity of the notification or irregularity in taking possession of the land before  publication of the declaration under Section 6. As regards  laches in  approaching the Court, this Court has been consistently  taking the  view starting  from State  of Madhya Pradesh  & Anr.  vs. Bhailal Bhai & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 1006] wherein  a Constitution  Bench had held that it is not either  desirable  or  expedient  to  lay  down  a  rule  of universal application  but the  unreasonable delay denies to the petitioner,  the discretionary  extraordinary remedy  of mandamus, certiorari  or any other relief. The same was view reiterated in catena of decisions, viz., Rabindranath Bose & Ors. vs. The Union of India & Ors. [(1970 (1) SCC 84]; State of Mysore  & Ors.  vs. Narsimha Ram Naik [AIR 1975 SC 2190]; Aflatoon &  Anr. vs.  Lt. Governor  of Delhi  [ (1975) 4 SCC 285]; M/s.  Tilokchand Motichand  & Ors.  vs.  H.B.  Munshi, Commissioner of  Sales Tax, Bombay & Anr. [AIR 1970 SC 898]; State of  Tamil Nadu  & Ors. etc. V. L. Krishnan & Ors. etc. [JT 1995  (8) SC  1]; Improvement Trust, Faridkot & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh  & Ors. [1987 Supp. SCC 608]; State of Punjab & Ors. vs.  Hari Om  Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Amritsar [1987  Supp. SCC  687]; Market Committee, Hodal vs. Krishan Murari  & Ors.  [JT 1995  (8) SC  494] and  State of Haryana vs.  Dewan Singh  [(1996 (7)  SCC 394]  wherein this Court had  held that  the High  Court was  not justified  in interfering with  the acquisition proceedings. This Court in the latest  judgement  in  Municipal  Corporation  of  Great Bombay vs.  The Industrial Development & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. &  Ors. [JT  1996 (8)  SC 16], reviewed the entire case law and  held that  the  person  who  approaches  the  Court belatedly will  be told  that laches  close the gates of the Court for  him to  question the legality of the notification under Section  4(1), declaration  under Section  6  and  the award of the Collector under Section 11.      In this  case, admittedly, the petitioner has purchased the property  covered by the notification under Section 4(1) after it  was published and, therefore, it’s title is a void title.  It   has  no  right  to  challenge  the  acquisition proceedings much  less the  award. The Division Bench of the High Court  has exhaustively reviewed the case law to negate the claim  of the  petitioner. We do not find any illegality in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.