1995 JTR(SC) 880
1995 3 CCC(SC) 41001 ; 1995 3 CurCC(SC) 410 ; 1995 DNJ 401 ; 1996 1 ICC 329 ; 1995 6 JT 624 ; 1995 2 PLJR(SC) 95 ; 1995 3 RRR 559 ; 1995 5 Scale 188 ; 1995 5 SCC 583 ; 1995 Supp3 SCR 139 ; 1995 2 UJ 816
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
STATE OF ORISSA
Versus
DHOBEI SETHI AND ANOTHER
Civil Appeals Nos. 3077-78 of 1980{From the Judgment and Order dated 11-9-1980 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.Cs. Nos. 43 of 1977 and 1573 of 1978}
Decided on 29-8-1995
Advocates appeared:
Raj Kumar Mehta, Advocate, for the Appellant.
The court emphasized the importance of timely filing of writ petitions and upheld the validity of the exercise of power under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226, Art.136
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.3(b), S.17(4), S.5(a), S.4(1)
(A) The Land Acquisition Act provisions operative here include Section 4(1) governing the publication of the acquisition notification for land parcels in Surveys Nos. 2309-2316, 2318, 2501, 2506-10, 2530-32 for Tehsil office and staff quarters construction, and Section 17(4) invoked for urgency to dispense with the enquiry mandated under Section 5-A. The declaration under Section 6 was published, and notices under Sections 9 and 10 were issued prior to possession taken on 16-12-1976. The challenges were filed through OJC No. 43 of 1977 questioning the validity of the Section 17(4) dispensation and OJC No. 1573 of 1978 by a subsequent purchaser contesting allocation post-notification, with the High Court allowing both on grounds of non-objection availability and public purpose.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of laches for delayed challenges, the High Courts supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 being exercisable only on valid grounds, the conclusiveness of procedural waivers under urgency clauses, and the restriction that subsequent purchasers cannot challenge acquisitions validated under Section 6.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) was published on 16-7-1970 for land acquisition at Niali, with urgency provisions under Section 17(4) dispensing Section 5-A enquiry, declaration under Section 6 on 27-4-1972, possession taken on 16-12-1976, and two writ petitions filed in 1977 and 1978 challenging the validity and objecting to sale after notification.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petitions, OJC No. 43 of 1977 was barred by laches after seven years, and OJC No. 1573 of 1978 could not be raised by a subsequent purchaser.
Issues:
Whether the High Court correctly exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the notification, whether the delay in filing writ petitions warranted dismissal on laches, and whether a subsequent purchaser can challenge the acquisition after declaration under Section 6.
Ratio Decidendi:
Post-notification challenges are barred by laches and waiver through urgency clause, and a subsequent purchaser lacks locus standi to acquisition validity after declaration under Section 6, warranting dismissal of writ petitions.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the notification and acquisition are upheld, and the matter is disposed of without costs.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act provisions operative here include Section 4(1) governing the publication of the acquisition notification for land parcels in Surveys Nos. 2309-2316, 2318, 2501, 2506-10, 2530-32 for Tehsil office and staff quarters construction, and Section 17(4) invoked for urgency to dispense with the enquiry mandated under Section 5-A. The declaration under Section 6 was published, and notices under Sections 9 and 10 were issued prior to possession taken on 16-12-1976. The challenges were filed through OJC No. 43 of 1977 questioning the validity of the Section 17(4) dispensation and OJC No. 1573 of 1978 by a subsequent purchaser contesting allocation post-notification, with the High Court allowing both on grounds of non-objection availability and public purpose.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of laches for delayed challenges, the High Courts supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 being exercisable only on valid grounds, the conclusiveness of procedural waivers under urgency clauses, and the restriction that subsequent purchasers cannot challenge acquisitions validated under Section 6.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) was published on 16-7-1970 for land acquisition at Niali, with urgency provisions under Section 17(4) dispensing Section 5-A enquiry, declaration under Section 6 on 27-4-1972, possession taken on 16-12-1976, and two writ petitions filed in 1977 and 1978 challenging the validity and objecting to sale after notification.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petitions, OJC No. 43 of 1977 was barred by laches after seven years, and OJC No. 1573 of 1978 could not be raised by a subsequent purchaser.
Issues:
Whether the High Court correctly exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the notification, whether the delay in filing writ petitions warranted dismissal on laches, and whether a subsequent purchaser can challenge the acquisition after declaration under Section 6.
Ratio Decidendi:
Post-notification challenges are barred by laches and waiver through urgency clause, and a subsequent purchaser lacks locus standi to acquisition validity after declaration under Section 6, warranting dismissal of writ petitions.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the notification and acquisition are upheld, and the matter is disposed of without costs.
R.K.MEHTA
ORDER
1. Though notice has been served on the respondents, no one has appeared in person or through counsel.
2. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act) was published on 16-7-1970 acquiring Ac. 2.02 dec. of land in Surveys Nos. 2309-2316, 2318, 2501, 2506-10, 2530-32 situated at Village Pubakhand for the purpose of construction of the Tehsil office building and staff quarters at Niali. Along with the said notification, the appellant invoked the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 27-4-1972. Notice under Sections 9 and 10 was published in the locality in December 1975 and possession of the land was taken on 16-12-1976. Sometime in 1977 OJC No. 43 of 1977 was filed questioning the validity of the exercise of power under Section 17(4) dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. Similarly, some other owners filed OJC 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 Section 5-A and public purpose would have been served by allowing the claimants to submit their objections.
3. As regards the second writ petition, namely, OJC No. 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.
4. As regards OJC No. 43 of 1977, in view of the fact that the notification was issued as early as on 16-7-1970, 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 the Constitution in upsetting the notification dated 16-12-1970 after a lapse of 7 years.
5. The appeals are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without costs.
For Citation: 1995(5) SCC 583