JUDGMENT 1. - Both these writ petitions have been filed challenging the Land Acquisition Proceedings in respect of Khasra Nos. 3163, 3164, 3164/1, 3165 and 3166, measuring about eleven Bighas situate in the Revenue Estate of village Suwana distract Bhilwara. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these reveal that the respondents issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) on 9-10-90 in respect of a large number of plots belonging to 427 land-holders measuring more than one thousand Bighas including the petitioner's land above referred to for establishing a residential colony in out-skirt of Bhilwara. The said Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 21-2-91. The substance of the said Notification was published in the local newspapers on 5-7-91 and 16-7-91 as is evident from Annexure 3 and 4 to the writ petition. The petitioner was served with a notice inviting objections under Section 5-A of the Act (Annexure-5). Petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition and after giving detailed explanation and making various contention, he sought release of the said land from acquisition proceedings. However, after considering the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, the Declaration under Section 6 was made on 3-7-1992 and was published in the Official Gazette on 27.8-1992 (Annexure-9). The respondent Land Acquisition Officer (the Collector, Bhilwara) served a notice under Section 9 to the petitioner on 26-2-1992 (Annexure-10) and the petitioner submitted his claim to the said notice and after considering his claim, the Collector made an Award under Section 11 of the Act on 26-10-94 (Annexure-21). Petitioner filed the instant writ petitions on 21-3-1995 praying that Section 4 Notification dated 21-2 1991, Section 6 Declaration dated 3-7-92 and the Award of the Collector dated 26-10-94, be quashed and the respondents be restrained from proceeding under the Act. 3. Petitioner filed the instant writ petitions on 21-3-1995 praying that Section 4 Notification dated 21-2 1991, Section 6 Declaration dated 3-7-92 and the Award of the Collector dated 26-10-94, be quashed and the respondents be restrained from proceeding under the Act. 3. Both these petitions have been filed on various grounds inter alia the substance of Section 4 Notification was not pasted at the conspicuous places, there was irregularities of giving Khasra Numbers in the publication of Section 4 Notification published in the local news papers, the petitioner was not given personal hearing while disposing of Section 5-A Objections, the declaration under Section 6 was made after one year from publication of the Notification under Section 4 (1) and Section 9 Notice was not served though a personal notice was given to the petitioner to file claim and he was not given an opportunity of personal hearing and the last ground is that the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Officer (the Collector) regarding the valuation of the land was too low. 4. The respondent have filed reply denying the averments made by the petitioner. It has been submitted in the reply that in Khasra No. 3164/1, measuring 16 Biswas of land, the petitioner has established an industrial unit and all other land is the agricultural land; the substance of Section 4 Notification was pasted at the conspicuous places; the petitioner was given personal hearing while disposing of his objections under Section 5-A on 31-12-91; and after giving him an opportunity of hearing, his objections were rejected; Section 6 Declaration was made within the period of one year as it was made on 3-7-92 though published subsequently on 27-8-92. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been dispossessed from the land on 4-8-94. However, in respect of Khasra No. 364/1 measuring 16 Biswas, a representation was made to the Government to release the said land and as the Government has not decided the matter, the respondents are bound to proceed, even in respect of that area in accordance with law. 5. Whatever may be the merit of the case, the issue to be determined first is whether petitioner can resort to the writ jurisdiction at such a belated stage. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the land acquisition proceedings. 5. Whatever may be the merit of the case, the issue to be determined first is whether petitioner can resort to the writ jurisdiction at such a belated stage. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the land acquisition proceedings. Petitioner was very well conversant with the land acquisition proceedings from the very inception. He has filed objection under Section 5-A and has received notice under Section 9. His counsel was heard while making the award under Section 11 of the Act. He filed the writ petition after a lapse of four years from Section 4 Notification and three years from Section 6 Declaration and even after six months from the date of making the Award. 6. It is settled proposition of law that when a person challenges Section 4 Notification, on any ground, it should be challenged within reasonable period and if the acquisition is challenged at a belated stage, the petition deserves to be dismissed only on this count. In Hari Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1984 SC 1020 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been held that where a large area of land is acquired and the plots which are subject to acquisition belong to large number of persons, if other persons have challenged the acquisition proceedings it is difficult to believe that appellant was not aware of the initiation of the acquisition proceedings as the acquisition of the said land would be the talk of the town in a short time and if the person interested failed to approach the writ Court within reasonable period, the petition should fail only on the ground of delay. 7. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 2077 has observed as under:- "....to have sat in fence and allowed the Government to complete the acquisition on the basis that notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to attack the notification on the grounds which were available to them at the time when the notification was published would be putting a premium of delatory tactics. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the petitioner." 8. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the petitioner." 8. Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. V. K. Kangan, AIR 1975 SC 2190 , wherein it was observed that respondent was not entitled to challenge the validity of Section 4 notification after an unreasonable lapse of time. If public notice as required by Section 4 of the Act was not given and that would per se vitiate the notification under Section 4, the person interested should have challenged its validity within a reasonable time of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. 9. In Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 852 , the Apex Court has held that even if the land owner continues in possession of the land then that fact could not be a ground to justify the condonation of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner to challenge it at a belated stage. 10. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development & Investment Company Pvt Ltd., (1996) 11 SCC 501 , the Apex Court has held that once the land acquisition proceedings are completed and becomes final, it is not open to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of non-compliance with any statutory requirement whatsoever. While deciding the case, reliance had been placed upon a large number of judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly in State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Krishnan, (1996) 1 SCC 250 ; State of Orissa v. Dhobei Sethi, (1995) 5 SCC 583 ; State of Maharashtra v. Digamber, (1995) 4 SCC 683 ; Ram Chand v. Union of India, (1994) 1 SCC 44 ; Bhoop Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1414 ; Indrapuri Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan. AIR 1974 SC 2085 ; H. D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 2 SCC 337 ; and Girdharan Prasad Missir v. State of Bihar, (1980) 2 SCC 83 , wherein the Apex Court has held that "the delay in challenging the Notification was fatal and the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. 11. AIR 1974 SC 2085 ; H. D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 2 SCC 337 ; and Girdharan Prasad Missir v. State of Bihar, (1980) 2 SCC 83 , wherein the Apex Court has held that "the delay in challenging the Notification was fatal and the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. 11. The issue of delay in filing the writ petition was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sudama Devi v. Commr., (1983) 2 SCC 1 . wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:- "There is no period of limitation prescribed by any law for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is, in fact, doubtful whether any such period of limitation can be prescribed by law. In any event one thing is clear and beyond doubt that no such period of limitation can be laid down either under the rules made by the High Court or by practice. For every case, it would have to be decided on the facts and circumstances whether the petitioner is guilty of laches and that would have to be done without taking into account any specific period as period of limitation. There may be cases where even short delay may be fatal while there may be cases where even a long delay may not be evidence of laches on the part of the petitioner. (Emphasis added).In Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1998) 4 SCC 387 , the Apex Court observed as under : "This Court has repeatedly held that the writ petition challenging the Notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches if challenge is not made within a reasonable time. This Court has said that the petitioner cannot sit on the fence and allow the State to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis that Notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to attack the notification on the grounds which were available to him at the time when these were published as otherwise it would be putting a premium on delatory tactics....... Writ petition is, thus, barred by laches as well." 12. Writ petition is, thus, barred by laches as well." 12. Thus, in view of the above, the Court is restrained to enter into the merit of the writ petitions as the same are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 13. The respondents have raised specifically the ground of delay and the petitioner has chosen not to controvert it by giving any satisfactory explanation whatsoever by filing rejoinder-affidavit. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. 14. The petitions are dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.Petition dismissed. *******