Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 15 (CHH)

KUMAR YASHWANTRAJ SINGH v. STATE OF C. G.

2009-01-12

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2009
ORDER 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the draft award dated 28-5-2002 (Annexure P/1) is bad on the ground that the State Government in pending Civil Suit No. 99-A/2001 has made the statement (Annexure P/8) that on a portion of the land admeasuring 0.59 acre of the land bearing Khasra No. 763/1 area 1.19 acres where construction was going on, the digging work had been stopped. The work for the said purpose has been shifted to Khasra bearing No. 535 area 1.50 acres, Ranibhata. After the said statement which may not be relevant, notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued stating clearly the village Lohara area 0.5 acre on 27 -11-2001, thereafter, subsequent notifications were issued and necessary steps were taken before preparing the draft. award dated 28-5-2002 (Annexure P/1), which is impugned herein. 2. The petitioner has not challenged the acquisition on any other ground, except that the impugned draft award was passed after making the above stated statement by the State Government, the work going on in the above stated Khasra No. 763/1 area 1.19 acres has been stopped and the same has been shifted to Khasra bearing No. 535 area 1.50 acres Ranibhata. The petitioner has not questioned the award on any other ground, which is permissible under the law. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4. It is well settled principle of taw that a writ petition questioning passing of the award is not maintainable as after taking over the possession of the land the same vests absolutely in the Government tree from all encumbrances. Even under Section 48 of the Act, 1894, the State Authority also cannot withdraw from acquisition after possession has been taken over. 5. In the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 1, the Supreme Court held as under: "29. It is thus well settled law that 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. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches." 6. In the matter of State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. D.R. Laxmi & Ors. 2, it was held as under: "9. ... When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference....". 7. In the matter of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Anr. Vs. Shah Hyder Beig & ors. 3, it was held as under: "17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (c. Padma Vs. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of TN)...". 8. Recently, in the matter of Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Rajsthan & Ors.4 the Supreme Court held that a writ petition having been filed after taking over the possession and the award having become final, the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay an laches. 9. No exceptional or extraordinary grounds exist or raised to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to take a departure from the well settled principles of law. 10. 9. No exceptional or extraordinary grounds exist or raised to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to take a departure from the well settled principles of law. 10. Applying the well settled principles of taw to the facts of the present case, where the petitioner has failed to challenge the notification and also the draft award on any other ground, except some statement made in the civil Court, which does not come in the way of subsequent acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, thus, this petition is not maintainable. 11. In view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to alternative forum which may be available to him for enhancement of the compensation, in accordance with law, if so advised. Petition Dismissed.