M/S STAR WIRE (INDIA) LTD.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

A                        MIS STAR WIRE (INDIA) LTD.
                                     v.1
                   THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

                               SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

          Ss.4(1) and 16--Purchaser's right to challenge acquisition proceed-
C ings-Notijication uls 4(1) pubUshed on 1.6.1976-Land alienated there-
    after-Award made on 3.7.1981-Purchaser challenged Notification and
    award by filing a writ petition ii; High Court on 21.1.1994 on the ground that
    he was not aware of acquisition proceedings-High Court dismissing writ
    petition-Appeal-Held, any incumbrance created by the erstwhile owner of
    the land after publication of Not(fication uls 4(1) does not bind the State if
D   possession of land is already taken over, after the award came to be
    passed-Petitioner purchased the property covered by the Notification after it
    was published and therefore purchaser's title is a void title--Purchaser has no
    right to challenge acquisition proceedings much less the award-Besides
    latches on the part of petitioner in approaching the court belatedly, disentitle
E   him from challenging the legality of the Notification and award.

          Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. The Industlial Develop-
    ment & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., JT (1986) 8 SC 16; Gumiukh Singh
    (Ind Ors., v. The State of Haryana,, JT (1995) 8 SC 208; Y.N. Garg v. State of
    Rajasthan, [1996] 1 SCC 284; Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P., [1996] 7 SCC
F   325 and U.P. Jal Nigam Lucknow through its Chainnan & Anr. v. Mis Kalra
    Properties (P) Ltd. Lucknow & Ors., [1996] 1 SCC 124, relied on.

         State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai & Ors., AIR (1964)
    SC 1006, followed.

G         Rabindranath Bose & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors., [1970] 1 SCC
    84; State of Mysore & Ors. v. Narsimha Ram Naik, AIR (1975) SC 2190;
    Aflatoon & Anr. v. Lt. Govemor of Delhi, [1975] 4 SCC 285; Mis Tilokchand
    Motichand & Ors. v. H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay &
    Anr., AIR (1970) SC 898; State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Etc. v. L. Klishnana
H   & Ors. Etc., JT (1995) 8 SC 1; Improvement Trnst, Faridkot & Ors. v. Jagjit
                                        6
                           STAR WIRE (I) LID. v. STATE                          7

     Singh & Ors., [1987) Supp. SCC 608; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Hari Om A
     Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Amritsar, {1987) Supp. SCC 687;
     Market Committee, Hoda/ v. Krishan Murari & Ors., JT (1995) 8 SC 494 and
     State of Hmyana v. Dewan Singh, [1996] 7 SCC 394, referred to.

          CIVIL APPELLATE· JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
     No. 20489 of 1996.                                                             B

          From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.96 of the Punjab &
     Haryana High Court in L.P.A.No.437 of 1996.

           P.P. Rao, S. Janani, K.L. Gupta and R.C. Nagia for the Petitioner.       C

           The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           Delay condoned.

.a          This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Punjab &    D
     Haryana High Court made on April 25, 1996 in LPA No.437/96. Notifica-
     tion under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the
     'Act'] was published on June 1, 1976. Declaration under Section 6 of the
     Act was published on February 16, 1977. The award was passed on July 3,
     1981. Thereafter, the reference also become final. The petitioner has
     challenged the notification, the declaration and the award as illegal, it      E
     contends that the award does not come in the way of the petitioner in filing
     the writ petition on January 21,1994. The High Court has dismissed the
     writ petition on the grounds of laches.

           Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends p
     that the petitioner had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings; as
     soon as it came to know of the acquisition, it had challenged the validity
     of the acquisition proceedings and, therefore, it furnishes cause of action
     to the petitioner. He further contends that the writ petition could not be
     dismissed on the ground of laches but was required to be considered on
     merits. We find no force in the contention. Any encumbrance created by G
     the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the notification under
     Section 4( 1) does not bind the State if the possession of the land is already
     taken over, after the award came to be passed. The land stood vested -in
     the State free from all encumbrances under Section 16. In Gunnukh Singh
     & Ors. v. The State of Haryana, JT (1995) 8 SC 208, this Court has held H
    8                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to challenge the legality of the
  acquisition proceedings on the ground uf lack of publication of the notifica-    4.;
  tion. In Y.N. Garg v. State of Rajasthan, [1996] 1 SCC 284 and Sneh Prabha
  v. State of U.P., [1996] 7 SCC 325,.this Court had held the alienations made
  by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the notification
B under Section 4(1), do not bind either· the State Government or the                    ,,
  beneficiary for whose benefit the land was acquired. The purchaser does
  not acquire any valid title. Even the colour of title claimed by the purchaser
  was void. The beneficiary is entitled to have absolute possession free from
  encumbrances. In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chainnan & Anr. v.
  M/s. Katra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors., [1996] 1 SCC 124, this
C Court had further held that the purchaser of the property, after the
  notification under Section 4(1) was published, is devoid of right to chal-
  lenge the validity of the notification or irregularity in taking possession of
  the land before publication of the declaration under Section 6. As regards
  )aches in approaching the Court, this Court has been consistently taking
D the view starting from State of Madhya Pradesh ,& Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai &
  Ors., AIR (1964) SC 1006 wherein a Constitution; Bench had held that it is
  not either desirable or expedient to lay down a rule of universal application
  but the unreasonable delay denies to the petitioner, the discretionary
  extraordinary remedy of mandamus, certiorari or any other relief. The
E same was view reiterated in catena of decisions, viz., Rabindranath Bose &
  Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors., (1970] 1 SCC 84; State of Mysore & Ors.
  v. Narsimha Ram Naik, AIR (1975) SC 2190; Aflatoon & Anr. v. Lt.
  Govemor of Delhi [1975] 4 SCC 285; Mis. Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. v.
  H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay & Anr., AIR (1970) SC
  898; State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Etc. v. L. Krishnan & Ors. Etc., JT (1995)
F 8 SC 1; Improvement Trnst, Faridkot & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors., [1987]
  Supp. SCC 608; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Hari Om Co-operative House
  Building Society Ltd., Amritsar, (1987] Supp. SCC 687; Market Committee,
  Hoda/ v. Krishan Murari & Ors., JT (1995) 8 SC 494 and State of Haryana
  v. Dewan Singh, [1996] 7 SCC 394 wherein this Court had held that the
G High Court was not justified in interfering with the acquisition proceedings.
   This Court in the latest judgment in Municipal Corporation of Great Bom-
  bay v. The Industrial Development & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., JT
   (1996) 8 SC 16, reviewed the entire case law and held that the person who
   approaches the Court belatedly will be told that laches close the gates of
H the Court for him to question the legality of the notification under Section
                            STAR WIRE (I) LID. v. STATE                              9

    4(1), declaration under Section 6 and the award of the Collector under                A
    Section 11.

           In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has purchased the property
    covered by the notification J1nder Section 4(1) after it was published and,
    therefore, it's title is a void title. It has no right to challenge the acquisition
    proceedings much less the award. The Division Bench of the High Court                 B
    has exhaustively reviewed the case law to negate the claim of the petitioner.
    We do not find any illegality in the judgment of the High Court warranting
    interference.

            The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
                                                                                          c
    R.P .                                                         Appeal dismissed.




.