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

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.