9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Delay and Laches in Filing the Writ Petition 2. Equitable Principles and Legal Malice 3. Acceptance of Award and Execution Proceedings 4. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution Summary: 1. Delay and Laches in Filing the Writ Petition: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of delay in filing the writ petition. The Municipal Corporation argued that the writ petition was filed 21 years after the notification and 16 years after the award and possession. The High Court had relied on Abhyankar's case, stating that delay does not automatically bar a petition if there is a reasonable explanation. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court misinterpreted the facts and that the plea of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, was validly raised during the hearing. 2. Equitable Principles and Legal Malice: The High Court had granted relief based on equitable principles, noting that the Municipal Corporation failed to utilize the land for the public purpose for which it was acquired and attempted to change the public purpose. The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the equitable doctrine "delay defects equity" applies, and discretionary relief under Article 226 should favor vigilant litigants. The High Court's reliance on equitable principles was found to be misplaced. 3. Acceptance of Award and Execution Proceedings: The Supreme Court noted that the respondents had applied for the execution of the award in 1995, which was not mentioned in the writ petition. This indicated acceptance of the award, contradicting the challenge to the acquisition notice. The Court highlighted that after the award is passed, no writ petition can challenge the acquisition notice, referencing the consistent view in cases like C. Padma & Ors. v. Dy Secretary to the Govt of T.N. & Ors and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. 4. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution: The Supreme Court reiterated that while Article 226 provides extraordinary jurisdiction to mitigate sufferings, it is based on equitable principles. The High Court's order to restore possession and cancel the notification was found erroneous. The Court emphasized that the land had been reserved for public purposes since 1952, and the notification for acquisition was justified. The appeal was allowed, the writ petition dismissed, and the direction for compensation withdrawal was upheld. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, dismissed the writ petition, and emphasized the importance of timely action and the acceptance of awards in land acquisition cases. The High Court's reliance on equitable principles and delay was found to be misplaced.
|
