P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS Special Civil Application is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the State Government to cancel Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act Notification dated 16/03/1983 and also to quash Sec. 6 of the said Land Acquisition Act Notification and also for directing the State Government not to proceed further with the impugned notifications or take any other action in that behalf. There is an alternative prayer for issuing a writ or direction-directing respondent No. 1 to refer the matter to the District Court Surat under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for deciding the proportion of the compensation payable to the petitioners. The short facts of this case are that Sec. 4 (1) Notification was issued in respect of the land in question in this Special Civil Application and other land on 16-3-1983. Before the issuance of the said Notification the petitioner No. 1 herein entered into a Banakhat with Shri Kalidas Gopalbhai Patel who is the original owner of this land for the purpose of purchasing the same. The land in dispute bear Survey No. 706 at the village Ichapore admeasuring 3 acres 12 gunthas (7000 sq. ft. ). On 18-2-1983 the said Kalidas Gopalbhai Patel executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of the petition No. 1. 4 25 the petitioner No. 1 on behalf of Kalidas Gopalbhai filed Special Civil Application No. 2035 of 1983 challenging Sec. 4 Notification for acquisition. Considering the premature nature of the Special Civil Application the petitioner No. 1 himself on 26-4-1983 withdrew the said petition. On 3-5-1983 the petitioner No. 1 as the power of attorney holder of the deceased Kalidas Gopalbhai Patel catered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit properties with the petitioner No. 2 herein. Subsequent to this agreement Sec. 6 Notification came into force on 19-9-1983 and subsequently Sec. 9 Notification came into force on 29-9-1983 in respect of the suit land. Petitioner No. 1 herein; in the capacity of power of attorney holder of deceased Kalidas Gopalbhai Patel along with twenty other petitioners filed Special Civil Application No. 5018: of 1983 challenging acquisition of land in dispute and the said petition has been. admitted and it is on the final hearing board as on date. Petitioner No. 1 herein; in the capacity of power of attorney holder of deceased Kalidas Gopalbhai Patel along with twenty other petitioners filed Special Civil Application No. 5018: of 1983 challenging acquisition of land in dispute and the said petition has been. admitted and it is on the final hearing board as on date. After the death of the petitioner No. 1 Kalidas Gopalbhai Patel who was represented by the power of attorney holder Dhirajbhai Thakorebhai Patel i. e. the petitioner No. 1 herein the widow and the heirs of Kalidas Gopalbhai Patel on 2/12/1988 made it clear before this Court that they were not proceeding with the Special Civil Application No. 5018 of 1983 and as such they were deleted from the main petition. The petitioner No. 2 herein filet Civil Application No. 2066 of 1988 in Special Civil Application No. 5018 of 1983 praying for impleading himself as the party in the main Special Civil Application. The said application was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 2/12/1988 After all these proceeding the petitioners have come forward with this main Special Civil Application for the reliefs which are extracted in paragraph supra. In this connection we can also mention the fact of the petitioner No. 2 filing Civil Suit regarding the threatened possession of the suit land in view of the land acquisition proceedings made for the benefit of the acquiring body at Surat Court and he had also prayed for injunction restraining the respondents therein from taking possession of their land. The 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J. D.) Surat by his order dated 25-1-1989 rejected the application Exhibit 5. On 25-1-1989 the petitioners have filed the present Special Civil Application ( 2 ) MR. B. S. Patel the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners ate the interested parties and as such the special civil application is maintainable that the petitioners as interested parties have locus standi to question the acquisition proceedings that inasmuch as the acquisition proceedings are subject matter of the Special Civil Application No. 5018 of 1983 which is on the final hearing Board the present petition by the petitioners cannot be thrown out on the narrow ground of locus standi and that when this Court is considering the validity of the acquisition in the main special civil application this petition has to be admitted. Mr. Mr. B. S. Patel the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners alternatively prayed that this Court must direct the respondent No. 1 to refer the matter to the District Court under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for the apportionment of the compensation. The facts narrated above will clearly reveal the anxiety of the petitioners herein at this belated stage to somehow thwart the land acquisition proceedings. The lands are being acquired for a public purpose to benefit the respondent No. 3 herein. When the respondent No. 3 is actively negotiating with the petitioners in the main Special Civil Application No. 5018 of 1983 and has succeeded in setting the matter by dropping their claims from the array of petitioners in the main Special Civil Application the petitioners their their best to intrude in the main special civil application by filing Civil Application No. 2066 of 1988 to get themselves impleaded as petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 5018 of 1983 and that has been rejected by the Bench of this Court as early as 2/12/1988 Further there is an order by this Court deleting the heirs of Kalidas Gopalbhai Patel from the array of petitioners since they had expressed their willingness to get themselves deleted from the Special Civil Application No. 5018 of 1983. From the facts it is clear that the petitioner No. 1 had executed the Banakhat as early as 11-11-1982 for the purpose of purchasing the land Survey No. 706 from Kalidas Gopalbhai Patel. An irrevocable Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the petitioner No. 1 by Kalidas Gopalbhai Patel and it is this petitioner No. 1 as the power of attorney holder executed the agreement in favour of the petitioner No. 2 for the sale of the suit laud on 3-5-1983. Thus it is clear that the petitioner No. 1 knowingly and willingly entered into an agreement for sale with the petitioner No. 2 on behalf of Kalidas Gopalbhai Patel and hence the petitioner No. 2 cannot any more press his claim for enforcing the Banakhat dated 11-11-1982 in his favour. The right to purchase the suit land has devolved upon the petitioner No. 2 on 3-5-1983 i. e. subsequent to the Sec. 4 (1) Notification. Agreement to sell cannot in the eye of laws create any interest in the immovable property sought to be purchased. The right to purchase the suit land has devolved upon the petitioner No. 2 on 3-5-1983 i. e. subsequent to the Sec. 4 (1) Notification. Agreement to sell cannot in the eye of laws create any interest in the immovable property sought to be purchased. Inspite of the fact that the Sec. 6 Notification was of the year 1983 no action was taken by either of these petitioners to agitate the genuineness of the land acquisition proceedings taken by the respondents up-till the year 1988. ( 3 ) EVEN though it is not necessary for us to consider as to the interestedness of the petitioners in questioning the main land acquisition proceeding on the facts and circumstances of this case for the completion of the record 2 may usefully refer to the catenations raised by the petitioners herein through their learned Counsel Mr. B. S. Patel. Section 3 (b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 defines person interested and reads as following: in the expression person Interested includes all Persons claiming an interest in compensation to be mate on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land"; the objections under Sec. 5a have to be made by the person interested within 30 days from the date of publication of the Notification. For the purpose of this Section a person who shall be deemed to be interested in land would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the lands were acquired under this Act. In this connection we can usefully refer to Sec. 5a of the Land Acquisition Act which reads as follows:"5 Hearing of Objections : (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under Sec. 4 sub-sec (1) as being needed of likely to be needed for 8 public purpose or for a company may within thirty days from the date of the publication of the Notification object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-sec. (2) Every objection under sub-sec. I shall be made to the Collector in writing ant the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being beard in person or any person authorised by him in this behalf or by pleader and shall after being all such objections and after making such further inquiry if an 6 as Va thinks necessary (either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under Sec. 4 sub-sec. (1) or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land to the. appropriate Government. containing his recommandations on the objections together with the record of the proceedings held by him for the decision of that Government ). The decision of the (appropriate Government) on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act":. ( 4 ) SECTION 9 of the Land Acquisition Act deals with issue of notice to persons interested and reads as follows: (1) Notice to persons interested: The Collector then cause public notice to he given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken Stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. (2) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed and shall require. all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and pace therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of publication of the notice) and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests and their objections (if any) to the measurements made under Sec. 8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. (3) She Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein or to be entitled to act for persons so interested as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf within the revenue district in which the land is situated. (4) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere and has no such agent. the notice shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence address or place of business and registered under Secs. 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 shall be substituted". ( 5 ) READING the abovesaid Sections an interesting question that arises is as to whether a person who will be ultimately interested in getting the compensation is also an interested person to object the acquisition of the land. In AIR 1982 Punjab 519 in the case of Radhey Sham Gupta and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors a Full Bench of the Punjab High Court dealing with the right to file the petition challenge ing the land acquisition proceedings by those purchasers who have purchased the land after the Sec. 4 Notification the Bench held;"now it is undeniable that the petitioners by virtue of being the purchasers of the land are entitled to and in any case can claim to be interested in the compen sation of the acquired land. They therefore fall clearly within the ambit of Sec. 3 (b) and on principle it would not be easy to bold that a person interested in the compensation is lacking in focus standi in challenge the acquisition. Again the ground that the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition because they are merely the purchasers of the land after the issuance of the notification under Sec. 4 stands well negatived by the binding precedent in Smt. Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee Bhatinda AIR 1970 SC 802 . Therein also some of the petitioners had purchased the land more than three years after the issuance of the notification under Sec. 4 Nevertheless their Lordship upheld their right to assail the acquisition". Therein also some of the petitioners had purchased the land more than three years after the issuance of the notification under Sec. 4 Nevertheless their Lordship upheld their right to assail the acquisition". This decision no doubt states that a person who has purchased the land after the issuance of the notification has a right to question the acquisition proceedings. As far as the present case is concerned no right has accrued to the petitioners in the properties cease there is only an agreement of sale. A Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mohammad Akil Khan v. Premraj Jawanmal Surana and Anr. reported in AIR 1972 Bombay 217 has held as follows:"a contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not of itself create any interest in or charge on such property. When the seller and buyer are both willing to perform their respective parts of the contract but the specific performance of the contract has become impossible by the unexpected interference by the State in acquiring the property the buyer shall be entitled to recover from the seller any purchase money property paid together with interest and also earnest with interest and to that extent be would have had under Sec. 55 of T. P. Act a charge on the land. However as the land is no more available to the parties to the State has acquired it and by deciding its compensation has converted the property into a sum certain the buyer would be entitled to claim from the compensation amount which represents the converted form of property his purchase money and earnest together with interest. It is in this sense that the buyer whose contract is frustrated has a claim or share in the compensation which becomes pay-able to the owner of the property by reason of the acquisition thereof. Section 3 (b) does not require that a Person for being interested must have an interest in the compensation which has become payable. on account of the acquisition of the land. Section 3 (b) does not require that a Person for being interested must have an interest in the compensation which has become payable. on account of the acquisition of the land. Under the definition of Sec. 3 (b) such buyer would be undoubtedly a person interested as he can claim the amount advanced by him together with interest from the land and in the absence of the land from the money which represents the converted value of that land; When See. 9 calls upon all persons to put in claims to compensation for all interests in such land an interest of the type held by buyer is also intended to be covered. There need not be a transfer of immovable property in favour of a person before he could be described as a person entitled to claim for an interest in the land. The language of Sec. 9 (i) of the Land Acquisition Act appears to be broad enough to include interest and claim for charge on land which would amount to an interest in the land for the purpose of Sec. 9 (1 ). HOWEVER such buyer who has only contracted to purchase the property and whose contract is frustrated cannot claim any share in the solatium payable under sub-see. 12) of Sec. 23. His interest is a limited interest as indicated by Sec 55 (6) (b) of the T. P. Act to the extent of a definite amount as what is acquired is the land and not the interest of such claimant separately as such. This light in a limited one to recover a sum certain and nothing beyond. This right which arises as a result of the compulsory acquisition cannot be considered to be an interest in the land which is acquired as such by the State. Fifteen per cent solatium payable under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 23 represents the payment for compulsory acquisition of land and as there is no compulsory acquisition of the interest of buyer at all he cannot resort to the provisions sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 23 for claiming any additional amount". Reading this decision it is clear that a contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shah take place on terms settled between the parties and that it does not of itself create any interest in or charge on such property. (2) of Sec. 23 for claiming any additional amount". Reading this decision it is clear that a contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shah take place on terms settled between the parties and that it does not of itself create any interest in or charge on such property. It is also clear from this decision that the person who has an agreement to purchase has undoubtedly a right to claim his amount of advance from the compensation amount but he cannot be considered to have an interest in the land which is acquired as such by the State. Hence this decision is not an authority to spell out that the person like the petitioner who has only an agreement to purchase can have right to question the acquisition proceedings as such. In yet another decision reported in AIR 1981 SC 866 in the case of Cen. Govt. Servants Co-op. Housing Society v. Wahab Uddin the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the locus standi of a person to question the land acquisition proceedings who has purchased a property in an auction sale by the Government under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954 In this case the party concerned had purchased in the auction the property in question by depositing the entire sale consideration. No doubt he was not able to get possession due to litigation started by the persons in possession of plot. The Supreme Court held that the fact that he did not get possession till acquisition due to litigation started by the person in possession of plot is immaterial and that the purchaser in auction has locus stand to maintain the writ petition. Even in this Supreme Court case we find that there was an auction and the person concerned purchased the property by depositing the entire sale consideration. In the present case we have only an agreement to sell which will not confer any right on the immovable property. ( 6 ) IN the case of Sunderlal v. Paramsukhdas reported in AIR 1968 SC 366 the Supreme Court has held that it is not necessary that in order to fall within the definition a person should claim an interest in land which has been acquired. A person becomes a person interested if he claims an interest in compensation to be awarded. A person becomes a person interested if he claims an interest in compensation to be awarded. Continuing further the Supreme Court observed;" It seems to us that Paramsukhdas in a person interested within Sec. 3 (b) of the Act because he claims an interest in compensation But before he can be made a party in a reference it has to be seen whether he comes within Sec. 20 (b) gad See. 21 of the Act". In this case also the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the right of the person to agitate for the compensation before the District Court. In that context the abovesaid observation was made by the Supreme Court. Hence we do not think that this case is an authority for holding that a person who holds an agreement for purchase is a person interested in questioning the land acquisition proceedings. ( 7 ) INASMUCH as we are not entering into this field of locus standi and as to the definition of person interested in relation to the petitioners herein to agitate the land acquisition proceedings we thought it fit to dispose of this special civil application at this admission stage on the ground of laches on the part of the petitioners herein. ( 8 ) THE facts narrated above will clearly reveal as to how the petitioners are trying to scuttle the land acquisition proceedings which have reached the stage of award and in respect of certain portions of the land by taking possession of the same. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner No. 1 who has originally entered into an agreement for purchasing the land in question has withdrawn the special civil application filed by Kalidas Gopalbhai Patel through him alongwith others questioning the land acquisition proceedings. The petitioners cannot be said to be persons who are ignorant of the land acquisition proceedings including that of Sec. 5a enquiry. Inspite of the fact that they are aware of such proceedings no objections were raised by them as provided under Sec. 5a of the Land Acquisition Act. A Full Bench of this High Court in a decision in the case of Shri Sanyojan Co-op. Inspite of the fact that they are aware of such proceedings no objections were raised by them as provided under Sec. 5a of the Land Acquisition Act. A Full Bench of this High Court in a decision in the case of Shri Sanyojan Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. Surajben reported in 1985 GLH 1118 : [ 1985 (2) GLR 1340 ] has held (at page 1355 of GLR):"an objector has to file his objections within 30 days of the issuance of the notification under Sec. 4 and cannot file his objections beyond that time and If he files them beyond time there would be no power with the Collector to entertain such objections and to proceed to decide the same as per Sec. 5a (2) of the Act. Such time barred objections have to be treated to be non-est and have to be consigned to the record room without being processed or processed with. It is therefore obvious in the light of the aforesaid statutory scheme that the objector is not entitled to be heard as of right in respect of objections filed after the expiry of period of 30 days after the date of issuance of notification under Sec. 4. Consequently the latter question as to under what circumstances the objector can be heard on objections filed beyond 30 days cannot survive". The abovesaid decision clearly spells out the futility of the objections made by the petitioners in this special civil application after an inordinate and extraordinary delay of several years. The facts of this case clearly reveal that Sec 4 Notification was made as early as on 16 The present Special Civil Application is filed as late as 1988 Objection under Sec. 5a has not also been made by the petitioners. In such circumstances we can usefully refer to the decision in the case of Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor Delhi reported in AIR 1974 SC 2077 wherein the Supreme Court held:"a valid notification under Sec. 4 is a sine qua non for initiation of proceedings for acquisition of property. In such circumstances we can usefully refer to the decision in the case of Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor Delhi reported in AIR 1974 SC 2077 wherein the Supreme Court held:"a valid notification under Sec. 4 is a sine qua non for initiation of proceedings for acquisition of property. To have sat on the fence and allowed the Government to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis that the notification under Sec. 4 and the declaration under Sec. 6 were valid and the to attack the notification on grounds which were available to them at the time when the notification was published would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the petitioners". The said decision and also the decision in the case of Shri Sanyojan Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. Surajben reported in 1985 GLH 1118 : [ 1985 (2) GLR 1340 ] squarely apply to the facts of this case and accordingly this Special Civil Application in dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the petitioners herein. ( 9 ) AS regards the alternative prayers to the effect that the Land Acquisition Officer be directed to refer the matter to the District Court Surat under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act it is open to the petitioners to put in necessary application before the Land Acquisition Officer for the said purpose and such application will be considered by the Land Acquisition Officer on merits. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons the Special Civil Application is dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged. Interim stay granted in vacated. ( 11 ) MR. Farooq Memon on behalf of gr. B. S. Patel the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that this order may be stayed for a period of two weeks in orders to enable the petitioners to take up the matter to the Supreme Court. Alternatively he prays that at least the respondents may be restrained from putting up any further construction on the disputed land for a period of two weeks. Alternatively he prays that at least the respondents may be restrained from putting up any further construction on the disputed land for a period of two weeks. ( 12 ) WE have clearly held in this judgment that the petitioners are playing obstruct tactics as if they have stepped into the shoes of those persons who have walked out from the array of petitioners in the main Special Civil Application No. 5018 of 1983. In these circumsstances it will be against our observations if we stay the operation of this order any further. Taking into consideration the alternative request made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners we direct the respondent No. 3 acquiring body not to put up any construction or carry out any construction operation for a period of 10 days from this date. The prayer for stay of this order is rejected. Rule discharged. .