Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF ORISSA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DHOBEI SETHI AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT29/08/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (5) 583 JT 1995 (6) 624
1995 SCALE (5)188
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Though notice has been served on the respondents, no
one has appeared in person or through counsel.
A notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
[for short, ‘the Act’] was published on July 16, 1970
acquiring Ac. 2. 202 dec. of land in Survey Nos. 2309-2316,
2318, 2501, 2506-10, 2530-32 situated at village Pubakhand
for the purpose of construction of the Tahasil office
building and staff quarters at Niali. Along with the said
notification, the appellant invoked the urgency clause under
s. 17 (4) of the Act dispensing with the enquiry under 5-A
of the Act. The declaration under s. 6 of the Act was
published on April 27, 1972. Notice under ss. 9 and 10 was
published in the locality in December, 1975 and possession
of the land was taken on December 16, 1976. Sometime in 1977
O. J. C. No.43 of 1977 was filed questioning the validity of
the exercise of power under s.17(4) dispensing with the
enquiry under s. 5-A. Similarly, some other owners filed
O.J.C. 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 s. 5-A and public purpose
would have been served by allowing the claimants to submit
their objections.
As regards the second writ petition, namely, OJC 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.
As regards OJC 43 of 1977, in view of the fact that the
notification was issued as early as on July 16, 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the Constitution in upsetting the notification dated
December 16, 1970 after a lapse of 7 years.
The appeal are accordingly allowed but in the
circumstances without costs.