(Adarsh Kumar Goel and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
Union of India and Others _______________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Gopaldas Bhagwan Das and Others _______________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 3636 of 2016, decided on March 27, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The land of the respondents was acquired vide Notification dated 24.10.1975 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act). The said land was earlier requisitioned in the years 1942 to 1945 for defence purpose. Award was made in the year 1986 and symbolic possession of the land was taken on 06.01.1987. Objections of the award were filed by the respondents against the award. A reference under Section 18 of the Act was made which was disposed of. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed by the respondents mainly on the ground that there was no due publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act which was a mandatory requirement.
2. The High Court upheld1 the plea of the respondents relying upon judgment of this Court in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala v. State of Maharashtra2.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that having regard to the fact that the land was already being used for defence purpose since the year 1942 to 1945 and the Notification under Section 4 issued on 24.10.1975 was challenged for the first time by the writ petition filed on 24.06.2002, the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches as entertaining such petition will seriously affect public interest. It was submitted that view taken in the relied upon judgment ignores the concept of laches.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in spite of delay and laches, this Court in the aforesaid judgment quashed the acquisition.
5. We are of the view that delay and laches may be a bar to challenge to the acquisition after 27 years. In T.N. Housing Board v. M. Meiyappan3 this Court held that in land acquisition proceedings the Court should not encourage stale litigation as it may hinder projects of public importance. The contra view in the three-Judge Bench decision in Dayal Singh v. Union of India4 was held to be in conflict with the Constitution Bench judgment in Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India5 and the three-Judge Bench judgment in Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed6. The said judgment was cited with approval in recent judgment of three-Judge Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra7.
6. In view of the above, the view taken by the two-Judge Bench in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala v. State of Maharashtra2 to the effect that delay and laches have to be ignored is not free from doubt.
7. Thus, we are of the view that the matter needs to be placed before a Bench of three Judges. Accordingly, let the papers be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
———
1 Gopaldas Bhagwandas v. Union of India, WP No. 1667 OF 2002, decided on 31-7-2015(Bom)
2 (2012) 6 SCC 348 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 698
3 (2010) 14 SCC 309 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 445
4 (2003) 2 SCC 593
5 (1970) 1 SCC 84
6 (2004) 4 SCC 460
7 (2018) 3 SCC 412 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 426
