JUDGMENT 1. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings including the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"), the Declaration made under Section 6 and the Award dated 27-12-95 passed under Section 11 of the Act, contained in Annexures 2 to 4, respectively. 2. Mr. S. N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this case is fully covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1998 Raj 202 . However, Mr. Kawadia has taken a preliminary objection that this case does not fall within the ambit of the said judgment for the reason that it is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. Section 4 Notification issued in February, 1990 and Section 6 Declaration made on May 17, 1994 and the Award made on 29-2-96, had been challenged by the writ petition at a very belated stage and, thus, this petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. 3. 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, tha 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. 4. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aflatoon v. Lt. 4. 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 not 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 dilatory tactics. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the petitioner." 5. 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. 6. In Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 852 , the Apex Court has held that even if the landowner 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. 7. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development & Investment Com pany 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. 7. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development & Investment Com pany 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) SOC 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 Missirv. 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. 8. The issue of delay in filing the writ petition was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sudama Devi v. Commissioner, 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 practise. 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. 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 Larson & 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 Not if cation 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 dilatory tactics..... writ petition is, thus, barred by laches as well." 9. 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 aches. 10. The petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. Intarim orders, if any, stand vacated.Petition dismissed. *******