2010 (4) TMI 964 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the acquisition proceedings can be challenged at a belated stage? Held that - Appeal dismissed. 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.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of acquisition proceedings at a belated stage.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court dealt with special leave petitions filed against a judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which dismissed petitions on the ground of delay. The petitioners sought relief to quash land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court noted a significant delay of 172 days in filing the special leave petitions after the High Court's decision. The issue at hand was whether acquisition proceedings could be challenged at a belated stage.

The Court emphasized that challenges to acquisition proceedings should be made within a reasonable period. Referring to past judgments, the Court held that petitions challenging acquisition proceedings at a belated stage deserved dismissal on the grounds of delay. The Court cited various cases where it was established that judicial review was not permissible when there was inordinate delay in challenging acquisition notifications.

In the present case, the petitioners argued that they were unaware of the acquisition proceedings due to limited publication of notifications. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the acquisition of a substantial amount of land would have been widely known. As a result, the Court found no fault with the High Court's decision to dismiss the petitions based on delay and upheld the judgment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions on the grounds of delay, reiterating that challenges to acquisition proceedings should be made in a timely manner to avoid dismissal based on laches and delay.