Full Judgment Text
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
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.