TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat 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. - SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 11023-11026/2010 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2010 - PANCHAL, J.M. AND CHAUHAN, B.S (DR), JJ. ORDER Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. These special leave petitions reveal a very sorry state of affair and make it evident that litigants are eager to abuse the process of the Court, having no idea for the law of limitation/delay and laches. 2. These special leave petitions have been filed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the petitions on the ground of delay observing that the award under Section 11 of Act 1894 had already been made on 27.4.2004. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed Review Petitions with 48 days delay which have also been dismissed vide order dated 25.9.2009. These petitions have been filed with 172 days delay. There is further delay of 37 days in re-filing of the same. 5. The issue involved in these petitions is as to whether the acquisition proceedings can be challenged at a belated stage. The issue is no more res integra as the issue has been considered by this Court time and again. 6. When a person challenges Section 4 Notification on any ground, it should be challenged within a reasonable period, and if the acquisition is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er: If the interested person allows the grass to grow under his feet by allowing the acquisition proceedings to go on and reach its terminus in the award and possession is taken in furtherance thereof and vest in the State free from all encumbrances, the slumbered interested person would be told off the gates of the Court that his grievance should not be entertained when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loath to quash the notifications. (Emphasis added) 10. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Rajasthan Ors. Vs. D.R. Laxmi Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 445, wherein this Court has held that even the void p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, 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. 13. In such circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
