Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed for the relief stated supra. After considering the pleadings and upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition mainly on the ground of delay/laches, against which, the writ petitioners are before this Court by way of this Writ Appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners submitted that the land(s) in question which measures 55 cents in S.No.99/3A were owned jointly by Late Thiruvengada Mudaliar and his three sons, namely Balaraman, Lakshmanan and Jagannathan, which is not disputed. They have purchased the land(s) in question on 14.07.1964. The said Thiruvengada Mudaliar had two daughters and three sons and both the daughters released their respective shares to his sons, namely Balaraman, Lakshmanan and Jagannathan. The said Thiruvengada Mudaliar died on 24.11.1972, Lakshmanan died on 10.05.1983, Balaraman died on 02.08.1988 and Jagannathan died on 20.03.1995. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the lands in question (55 cents) along with a larger extent, were acquired for construction of Temple Bay Shore Cottage at Mamallapuram by the third respondent-ITDC. The details of acquisition are as follows:

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners further contended that the said new Act is intended to save and protect the land owners from illegal and improper acquisitions. The new Act was brought out only with an intention to protect the rights of poor land owners who lost their lands and have not been paid their fair compensation in proper manner as envisaged under law. This new enactment does not state that there is a time limit for application of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the acquisition proceedings are aged more than 40 years, cannot be challenged now, becomes baseless. Hence, the dismissal of the Writ Petition by the learned Single http://www.judis.nic.in Judge on the ground of delay/laches, is unsustainable, in view of the fact that the new Act itself came into force only on 01.01.2014 and the Writ Petition has been filed within a reasonable period in the year 2016. The appellants/writ petitioners have exercised their rights after the new Act is enacted and therefore, the delay cannot be attributed to them, since the Writ Petition has been filed as early as on 29.07.2016. The appellants/writ petitioners have been given the legal right under Section 24 of the new Act to challenge the acquisition proceedings without any time frame or without prescribing any period till when the challenge could be made.

14. Countering the above submissions, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 2 and 4 to 6 submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable on the ground of delay/laches in approaching the Court. There is inordinate delay of 40 years in invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court, which has not been satisfactorily explained with proper reasons. Therefore, on this short ground alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of this submission, learned Additional Advocate General relied on decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 2010 (14) SCC 309 (T.N.Housing Board Vs. Meiyappan) and 1995 (4) SCC 683 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar).

25. Learned counsel for the third respondent-ITDC further submitted that the land acquisition proceedings started with the publication of Section 4(1) Notification, dated 23.07.1976 and ultimately the Award was passed, and there is abnormal delay and laches on the part of the appellants/writ petitioners in challenging the land acquisition proceedings, and hence, on the ground of delay, laches and third party rights, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the third respondent relied on the following judgments: