Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Essma Woollen Mills Industries Pvt. ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 May, 2011
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Garg
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5698 OF 2003 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: May 18 , 2011.
Parties Name
M/S Essma Woollen Mills Industries Pvt. Ltd.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
PRESENT: None for the petitioner
Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana;
Jasbir Singh, J. (oral)
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on February 23, 1989, vide which the land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for development and utilisation of land as Residential and Commercial area for Sector 13 Panipat. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on February 22, 1990.
The petitioner is owner of about 10 Bighas of land. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5698 OF 2003 -2- It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that the land was ordered to be acquired in a pick and choose manner and that land owned by many other owners was released from acquisition, whereas that relief was not given to the petitioner without any justification.
When notice of motion was issued on May 8, 2003, following order was passed by this Court:-
"Inter alia contends that even though notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertained to the years 1989 and 1990, no notice under Section 9 of the said Act was issued to the petitioner and that even though property was purchased by the petitioner on 27.3.1989, i.e., just four days after notification under Section 4 was issued, mutation thereof also came into being far prior to issuance of declaration under Section 6.
Notice of motion for 11.9.2003.
Stay dispossession meanwhile."
From the facts of this case, it becomes apparently clear that the petitioner purchased the land after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In view of above, no objection was filed under Section 5-A of the Act. Otherwise also, as per statement, constructed area along with proportionate area measuring 6 Bighas 1 Biswa was kept out of acquisition. Para No. 5 of the reply reads thus:
"5. That the constructed area alongwith proportionate area measuring 6 bigha 1 biswa has been left out from acquisition CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5698 OF 2003 -3- which existed at the time of issuance of notification u/S 4 dated 23-2-89. However, only remaining area which falls in the green belt has been acquired."
This writ petition has been filed after more than 10 years of finalisation of the acquisition proceedings, there is no explanation given for the delay.
Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Aggarwal, Civil Appeal No. 3604 of 2001, decided on April 26, 2011, re: delay in laying challenge to the proposed acquisition has observed as under:
"16. It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is that the High Court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect the settled/crystallized rights of the parties. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006, the Constitution Bench considered the effect of delay in filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and held:
"............It has been made clear more than once that the power to give relief under Article 226 is a discretionary CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5698 OF 2003 -4- power. This is specially true in the case of power to issue writs in the nature of mandamus. Among the several matters which the High Courts rightly take into consideration in the exercise of that discretion is the delay made by the aggrieved party in seeking this special remedy and what excuse there is for it..................... .........It is not easy nor is it desirable to lay down any Rule for universal application. It may however be stated as a general Rule that if there has been unreasonable delay the court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party by this extraordinary remedy of mandamus. ...........................Learned counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Art 226. It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a Civil Court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured. The court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonable."
17. In matters involving challenge to the acquisition of land for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5698 OF 2003 -5- public purpose, this Court has consistently held that delay in filing the writ petition should be viewed seriously and relief denied to the petitioner if he fails to offer plausible explanation for the delay. The Court has also held that the delay of even few years would be fatal to the cause of the petitioner, if the acquired land has been partly or wholly utilised for the public purpose."
The respondents have done everything , which was required at their part. The petitioner failed to lay challenge to the acquisition at an appropriate time. Furthermore, in order to claim discrimination, nothing has been brought on the record. Under what circumstances, land of others was released in the year 2008, nothing has come on record . No case is made out for interference. Dismissed.
( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 18, 2011.
DKC