S. MURALIDHAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition was filed on 1. 1. 2000 seeking the quashing of an award No. 15/87-88 in respect of land ad-measuring 16 bighas and 11 biswas in village Chattarpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi. The said award was made pursuant to a Notification dated 25. 11. 1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (`act') and a Declaration under Section 6 of the Act vide Notification dated 7. 6. 1985. ( 2 ) THE writ petition was filed by one Anil Gupta, claiming to be an authorised attorney of the four petitioners on the basis of a General Power of attorney dated 28. 10. 1999, a copy of which was annexed to the petition. The petitioners claimed that while they were aware of the Notification under Section 4 and Declaration under Section 6 as noticed hereinabove, they knew nothing of the passing of the Award No. 15/87-88 till 30. 1. 1999 on which date, the officers of the Delhi Development Authority ('dda'), Respondent No. 2 herein, sought to take possession of the land. It is the petitioners' case that although the ownership of the land was changed in the name of the Government in 1967-68, they continued to cultivate the land even till the date of the filing the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE writ petition was first listed before a learned Vacation Judge of this Court on 3. 1. 2000. Notice was directed to be issued. It was further directed that the petitioners would not be dispossessed till the next date of hearing. The respondents failed to file any counter affidavit for nearly two years and the interim order continued. On 3. 1. 2002, Rule was issued and the interim order made absolute. ( 4 ) ON 3. 12. 2005, the petitioners filed an application being CM. No. 38 of 2006 supported by an affidavit of Petitioner No. 1 stating that Anil Gupta has impersonated himself as the attorney of the petitioners and further that the general Power of Attorney annexed to the petition was a forged and fabricated document. It was further stated that"mr. Anil Gupta as well as respondent (sic) is committing willful breach and disobedience to (sic) the stay orderdated 3. 1. 2000 passed by this Hon'ble Court through selling the property in question and constructing houses rapidly on it despite making complaints dated 4. 6. It was further stated that"mr. Anil Gupta as well as respondent (sic) is committing willful breach and disobedience to (sic) the stay orderdated 3. 1. 2000 passed by this Hon'ble Court through selling the property in question and constructing houses rapidly on it despite making complaints dated 4. 6. 2005 and 29. 6. 2005 against them. "the prayer in the application was for an early hearing of the writ petition, restraining Anil Gupta from dispossessing the petitioners and ordering the demolition of houses unlawfully constructed by anil Gupta. When this application came up for hearing on 3. 1. 2006, this Court permitted the counsel for the petitioners to withdraw the application with liberty to file a fresh application for the same relief with appropriate averments and prayers. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER on 24. 4. 2006 the petitioners filed an application being cm. No. 4994 of 2006 whereby it was prayed that the petitioners be permitted to discharge Anil Gupta and conduct the present case themselves. By an order dated 25. 7. 2006 this Court allowed the application and directed Petitioner No. 1 to file an affidavit in support of the petition. ( 6 ) THE writ petition was thereafter heard finally on 17. 8. 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners' lands could not have been acquired by the Notification dated 25. 11. 1980 since they belonged to the government but under cultivation of the petitioners. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to explain why the petitioners waited till the year 2000 to file this writ petition challenging acquisition proceedings that commenced in 1980, and why the writ petition ought not to be dismissed on the ground of laches. ( 7 ) IN our view, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed for more than one reason. The first is that it is plainly barred by laches. Land acquisition proceedings which commenced with the issuance of the Section 4 Notification on 25. 11. 1980 cannot be sought to be challenged in 2000 after a gap of nearly two decades, particularly where there is no plausible explanation whatsoever in the writ petition. Admittedly the award has already been made and the petitioners are no longer in possession. The petitioners also, on their own showing, did not file any objections under Section 5a of the Act. Admittedly the award has already been made and the petitioners are no longer in possession. The petitioners also, on their own showing, did not file any objections under Section 5a of the Act. ( 8 ) IN Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig (2000) 2 SCC 48 the hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the well settled position as under:"it is now a well-settled principle of law and we need not dilate on this score to the effect that while no period of limitation is fixed but in the normal course of events, the period the party is required for filing a civil proceeding ought to be the guiding factor. While it is true that this extraordinary jurisdiction is available to mitigate the sufferings of the people in general but it is not out of place to mention that this extraordinary jurisdiction has been conferred on to the law courts under Article 226 of the Constitution on a very sound equitable principle. Hence, the equitable doctrine, namely, "delay defeats equity" has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The discretionary relief can be had provided one has not by his act or conduct given a go-by to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant and this being the basic tenet of law, the question of grant of an order as has been passed in the matter as regards restoration of possession upon cancellation of the notification does not and cannot arise. "this was reiterated in Northern India Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh (2003)1 SCC 335 . ( 9 ) THE second reason why this writ petition lacks merit is that the notification dated 25. 11. 1980 has been the subject matter of several writ petitions in this Court. The validity of the acquisition proceedings pursuant to this Notification have been upheld in a series of judgments. The decision in abhay Ram v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 2564 was followed in Delhi administration v. Gurdeep Singh Uban (I) AIR 1999 SC 3822 and further reiterated in Delhi Administration v. Gurdeep Singh Uban (II) AIR 2000 SC 3737 . The decision in abhay Ram v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 2564 was followed in Delhi administration v. Gurdeep Singh Uban (I) AIR 1999 SC 3822 and further reiterated in Delhi Administration v. Gurdeep Singh Uban (II) AIR 2000 SC 3737 . There is no question, therefore, of questioning the validity of the award in the present proceedings since the validity of the acquisition proceedings pursuant to the above notifications under Section 4 and 6 has been settled by the Hon'ble supreme Court. As explained in these decisions, the petitioners not having filed objections under Section 5a of the Act, cannot be granted any relief whatsoever. ( 10 ) THE facts of the present case reveal that for over six years interim orders of stay of dispossession continued on a false representation made by a person holding out himself to be a constituted power of attorney. It is indeed unfortunate that the respondents did not draw the attention of this Court to this fact and seek to have stay order vacated earlier. It is hoped that the respondents will now, with the dismissal of the writ petition, ensure that there is no misuse of the land and that it is put to the use for which it has been acquired. The writ petition is dismissed and the interim orders stand vacated.