Holding

A writ petition filed after possession of the land has been taken and the acquisition award has become final is not maintainable, and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The appellants' land was notified for acquisition under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 in 1975 and a declaration was made in 1984 directing them to surrender possession. They first approached the Calcutta High Court, which was stayed by the Supreme Court on jurisdictional grounds. Possession was taken in 1987 and an award was passed in 1989. The appellants later filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the acquisition, but the petition was dismissed and the dismissal affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court held that a writ petition filed after possession has been taken and the award has become final is not maintainable, citing delay and laches. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition challenging a land acquisition is maintainable after possession has been taken and the award is final
Whether the delay and laches bar the appellants from seeking relief
Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition is proper

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 4, s. 6
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959s. 52(1), s. 52(2), s. 52(5)

Subjects

land acquisitionurban improvementwrit petitiondelaylachespossessioncompensation enhancementjurisdictionArticle 226

Judgment

~~

[2008) 2 S.C.R. 521

t SWAIKA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. A
II.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.1081 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 7, 2008
B
[ASHOK BHAN AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.]

,,,j.
Urban development:
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 - ss. 52(1),
52(2), 52(5) - Writ Petition challenging notification for c
acquisition of land after possession was taken over and award
became final - Maintainability of - Held: Not maintainable on
the ground of delay and /aches - Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- ss. 4, 18 - Delay and /aches.
D
On 23.6.1975, a notice was issued under s.52(2) of
the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, for acquiring
\L .A the land of the appellants for improvement and for
extension of Jaipur Town. The appellants filed objections
to the acquisition of their land which were rejected by the
Land Acquisition Officer. On 8.2.1984, the Government E
issued declaration under s.52(1 ). Pursuant to the said
declaration, notice dated 17/18.2.1984 under s.52(5) was
issued asking the appellants to hand over possession of
the land. After these notices, the appellants filed writ
petition in Calcutta High Court. High Court granted stay F
."" of the acquisition proceeding restraining authorities from
taking possession of the land. The respondents filed SLP
before this Court. This Court did not go into the merits of
the case and while granting leave, set aside the orders of
Calcutta High Court and held that the Calcutta High Court G
..-: .....
did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ petition
in respect of land situated in the State of Rajasthan.
On 17.2.1987, possession of the land in question
521 H
~
•
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A allegedly was taken by the respondents and the same was f
handed over to Jaipur Development Authority. However,
according to the appellants, possession was not taken.
The appellants filed writ petition in the High Court of
Rajasthan but withdrew it with liberty to file a fresh writ
B petition. On 26.6.1989, the Land Acquisition Officer passed
an award. In the meantime, the appellants filed a writ
petition seeking quashing of Notification dated 8.2.1984
~
and notices dated 17/18.2.2007. Single Judge of High
Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there was a
c genuine public purpose behind initiating the acquisition
proceedings. On appeal, Division Bench of High Court
held that since the appellants had filed an application
under s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for
enhancement of the compensation, they were not entitled
to the relief sought for in the writ petition. Hence the
D
present appeal. •
~I
Dismissing the appeal, the Court •
>-A
HELD: The appellants had filed a writ petition before
the Calcutta High Court challenging the acquisition
E proceedings, but the said writ petition was dismissed by
this Court on 8.4. 1985 holding that the Calcutta High Court
did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ
petition. Thereafter, till 1987 the appellants did not ,.
challenge the acquisition proceedings and the writ
F petition was filed by it before the Rajasthan High Court ..,, .
which had the territorial jurisdiction in the matter and the
same was withdrawn which was again filed within the next
four months thereof, meaning thereby, during the
interregnum the appellants slept over the matter. However,
G the appellants have not been able to give any explanation
for the same. Insofar as the contention regarding the -+- ,.._
possession having not been taken is concerned, the
respondents submitted that the possession of the land
in dispute has already been taken. Be that as it may, the
H award in respect of the land having become final, the State
SWAIKA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. STATE 523
OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [ASHOK BHAN, J.]

Government is vested with the powers to take possession A
of the land concerned and, therefore, there is no reason
to disbelieve the claim of the State Government that the
possession had been taken before the filing of the writ
petition. Moreover, the appellants sought enhancement
of compensation by filing reference application under s.18 B
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Simultaneously, the
appellants filed writ petition before the High Court of
Rajasthan after passing of the award. A writ petition
challenging the notification for acquisition of land, if filed
after the possession having been taken, is not
~
maintainable. The writ petition having been filed after
' taking over the posses~ion and the award having become
final, the same deserves to be dismissed. on the gr~~nd
of delay and laches. [Paras 13,17] [527~A-F; 529-G; 53 -A]
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial 0
Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (1996) 11 SCC
501; State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. D.R. Laxmi & Ors. (1996) 6
.. .A SCC 445; Municipal Council Ahmednagar & Anr. v. Shah
Hyder Beig & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to
the Govt. of T.N. (1997) 2 sec 627 - relied on. ~
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1081
of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 4.9.2006 of the
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in F
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 134/2006.
Dr.AM. Singhvi, Dr. Manish Singhvi and P.V. Yogeswaran
for the Appellants.
Bharat Vyas, A.A.G., C.S. Vaidyanathan, Manish Kumar
and Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Respondents .
G
... t
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed H
~
/
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R.

A on 04th September 2006 in D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.134 of
2006 by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan
dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants whereby the
Division Bench has upheld the judgment and order passed by
a learned Single Judge of the same High Court dismissing the
8 writ petition filed by the appellants thereby upholding the
acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the appellants.
3. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, ...
facts leading to the filing of the appeal are necessary to be
indicated.
c
4. Notice under Section 52(2) [which is equivalent to
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1a94] of the Rajasthan
Urban Improvement Act 1959 (for short, 'the Act') was issued
on 25th June 1975 for acquiring the land of the appellants bearing
Khasra No.3a3 measuring 14 bighas and 16 biswas situated
D
at Madrampura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. As per the said notice, land
was sought to be acquired for improvement and purposes of
Jaipur Town - extension of Civil Lines Area for construction of ~ ....
buildings. On 23rd August 1975, another notice was issued by
the State under Section 52(2) of the Act indicating the purpose
E of acquisition of land for extension of civil lines and planning of
housing scheme. Appellants, on oath September 1975, filed
objections to the acquisition of their land. The appellants also /

submitted their representation from time to time. The Land
Acquisition Officer, however, rejected the objections. On oath
F February 19a4, the Government issued declaration under
Section 52(1) of the Act [which is equivalent to Section 6 of the
r
Land Acquisition Act, 1a94]. Pursuant to the said declaration,
notice under Section 52(5) of the Act was issued asking the
appellants to hand over possession of the land.
G
5. After these notices were issued, the appellants filed Writ
Petition No.5972 of 19a4 before the High Court of Calcutta. A + .. ·''

-
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta, while issuing
rule nisi, granted stay of the acquisition proceedings and )

restrained the respondents from taking possession of the land.
H
~
SWAIKA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. STATE 525
OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [ASHOK BHAN, J.]

Aggrieved against the said order the respondents filed Special A
Leave Petition before this Court, inter alia, challenging the
jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to entertain the writ
petition. Since the Special Leave Petition was filed against an
interim order, this Court did not go into the merits of the case
and while granting leave, by order dated oath April 1985, set ij
aside the order of the Calcutta High Court and held that the
Calcutta High Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the writ petition in respect of a land situated in the
State of Rajasthan. Thus, the proceedings before the Calcutta
High Court came to an end. c
6. On 17.02.1987, possession of the land in question is
alleged to have been taken by the respondents and the same
was handed over to Jaipur Development Authority. However,
according to the the appellants, possession was not taken.
D
7. The appellants filed Writ Petition No.1507 of 1987 in
the High Court of Rajasthan which was withdrawn by them on
.,. .A
1oth March 1989 with liberty to file a fresh writ petition .
8. On 25th June 1989, the Land Acquisition Officer passed
the award and forwarded the same for approval to the State E
Government. According to the respondents, the State
Government accorded its approval on 29th July 1989 which was
declared by the Land Acquisition Officer on 30th July 1989 in
accordance with law.
9. In the meantime, the appellants filed S.B.Civil Writ F
Petition No.2911of1989 seeking quashing of Notification dated
oath February 1984 and also notice dated 17th/181h February
2007 by which the possession is alleged to have been taken.
One of the objections taken by the respondents before the High
Court was that the writ petition could not be entertained after G
~ ~ taking over of the possession of the land and handing over the
same to Jaipur Development Authority and the award having
been passed in respect of the said land in accordance with \aw.
It was also alleged that the award was not the subject-matter of
the writ petition. It was also pointed out that the appellants were H'
-~
\•'------

~
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A simultaneously pursuing Reference Application for enhancement
of compensation. Ultimately, a learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Rajasthan, accepting the submissions of the
respondents, dismissed the writ petition holding that the there
was a genuine public purpose behind initiating the acquisition
B proceedings.
10. Being aggrieved, the appellants carried the matter in
appeal before.the Div1sion Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan.
The Division Bench, agreeing with the view taken by the learned
Single Judge, dismissed the appeal and held that since the
c appellants had filed an application under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of the compensation they
';;
are not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. The
said order is under challenge before us.
11. A preliminary objection has been taken by the
D
respondents to the effect that the appeal is liable to be dismissed
on the ground of the delay on the part of the appellants to
challenge the acquisition proceedings. It is also submitted that
~·
the acquisition of the land cannot be challenged after taking
over of the possession and after the award having become final.
E In support of this submission, the respondents have relied upon
a number of judgments of this Court.
12. Counsel for the appellants, however, strenuously
contended that there was no delay on the part of the appellants
F in filing the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings.
He submitted that soon after the notice under Section 52(5) was
issued by by the respondents, the appellants filed writ petition
before the High Court of Calcutta which stood dismissed
pursuant to an order of this Court, as noted above. Thereafter
the appellants filed another writ petition before the High Court
G
of Rajasthan which was withdrawn. Within a period of four
months thereof, i.e., on 05th July 1989, another writ petition _., ....
bearing No.2911 of 1989 was filed. Counsel also submitted that
these acts of the appellants demonstrate that there was no delay
on the part of the appellants to seek redressal of their grievance.
H
~

SWAIKA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. STATE 527
OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [ASHOK BHAN, J.]
-'t It was contended that actual possession of the land was never A
taken by the respondents on 17th119th February 1987.
13. We do not find any substance in the submissions of
the counsel for the appellants. No doubt, the appellants had filed
a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging the
acquisition proceedings, but the said writ petition was B
dismissed by this Court on oath April 1985 holding that the
Calcutta High Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to
-j
entertain the writ petition. Thereafter, till 1987 the appellants did
not challenge the acquisition proceedings and the writ petition
was filed by it before the Rajasthan High Court which had the c
territorial jurisdiction in the matter and the ~ame was withdrawn
which was again filed within the next four months thereof,
meaning thereby, during the interregnum the appellants slept
over the matter. However, the appellants have not been able to
give any explanation for the same. Insofar as the contention D
regarding the possession having not been taken is concerned,
the respondents submit that the possession of the land in
.,. A dispute has already been taken. Be that as it may, the award in
respect of the land having become final, the State Government
is vested with the powers to take possession of the land E
concerned and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the
claim of the State Government that the possession had been
taken before the filing of the writ petition. Moreover, the
appellants sought enhancement of compensation by filing
reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition F
--,. Act, 1894. Simultaneously, the appellants filed writ petition
before the High Court of Rajasthan after passing of the award.
This Court has repeatedly held that a writ petition challenging
the notification for acquisition of land, if filed after the possession
having been taken, is not maintainable. In the case of Municipal
G
Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development
..... Investment Co. Pvt. ltd. & Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 501 where K.
Ramaswamy, J. speaking for a Bench consisting of His Lordship
and S.B. Majmudar, J. held:
"It is thus well-settled law that when there is inordinate H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A 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 to quash the notification under Section
B 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
c 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
D
laches."
14. In the concurring judgment, S.B. Majmudar, J. held as
under:
"..... Such a belated writ petition, therefore, was rightly
E rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground of
gross delay and laches. The respondent-writ petitioners ;
can be said to have waived their objections to the
acquisition on the ground of extinction of public purpose
by their own inaction, lethargy and indolent conduct. The
F Division Bench of the High Court had taken the view that
because of their inaction no vested rights of third parties
are created. That finding is obviously incorrect for the
simple reason that because of the indolent conduct of the
writ _petitioners land got acquired, award was passed,
G compensation was handed over to various claimants
including the landlord. Reference applications came to be· + ..
filed for larger compensation by claimants including writ
petitioners themselves. The acquired land got vested in
the State Government and the Municipal Corporation free
H from all encumbrances as enjoined by Section 16 of the
-- SWA!KA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. STATE
OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [ASHOK RHAN, J.]
529

-'r Land Acquisition Act. Thus right to get more compensation A
got vested in diverse claimants by passing of the award,
as well as vested right was created in favour of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation by virtue of the vesting of the land
in the State Government for being handed over to the
Corporation. All these events could not be wished away B
by observing that no third party rights were created by
them. The writ petition came to be filed after all these
·~ events had taken place. Such a writ petition was clAarly
stillborn due to gross delay and laches ..... "
15. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. c
D.R. Laxmi & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 445 following the decision of
this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay (supra) it was held :
".... When the award was passed and possession was
D
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 E
the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches ..... "
I
16. To the similar effect is the judgment of this Court in the
7 case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar &Anr. v. Shah Hyder F
,. ~

Beig & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 48 this Court, following the decision
of this Court in the case of C. Padma v. Dy Secy to the Govt.
of T.N. (1997) 2 sec 627 held :
"In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition
can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against G
..4' + any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent
view taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C.
Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N.) .... "

17. In the present case also, the writ petition having been
H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A filed after taking over the possession and the award having
become final, the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground
of delay and laches. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single
Judge and that of the Division Bench are affirmed to the extent
of dismissal of the writ petition and the special appeal without
B going into the merits thereof. This appeal also deserves to be
dismissed without going into the merits of the case and is
dismissed as such. No costs.
D.G. Appeal dismissed.