Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3790 OF 2017

JASVEER SINGH AND ANR.                                …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3787 OF 2017  

RAJINDER SINGH                                …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3786 OF 2017  

BHAG SINGH                                …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

Page 2

2

J U D G M E N T   

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the Order of

the  High  Court  of  Allahabad  in  Writ  C.  No.  59918  of  2014

rejecting the prayer of  the appellants for quashing the land

acquisition  proceedings  initiated  vide  notification  dated  18th

August 1981 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894.  The acquisition was “for the construction of New

Broad Gauge Railway Line between Rampur and Haldwani” in

the  District  of  Rampur.   Urgency  clause  was  invoked.

Possession of  the land was taken on 19th September,  1986.

The  award  was  made  on  22nd September,  1986.   The

appellants  preferred  reference  under  Section  18  for

enhancement of compensation which was decided vide Award

dated 7th December, 1988 by the District Judge, Rampur.  First

appeals against the said award were decided by the High Court

on  29th January,  2004.   This  Court  vide  order  dated  12th

September,  2005  in  Civil  Appeal  Nos.  5714-15  of  2005

remanded the matters to the High Court having regard to the

grievance of the appellant against denial of statutory benefits.

Page 3

3

2. On  19th December,  2005  the  appellants  filed  a  writ

petition  before  the  High  Court  seeking  quashing  of  the

acquisition proceedings which was decided by the High Court

on  3rd December,  2010  directing  redetermination  of

compensation.  The said order was set aside by this Court on

16th October,  2012 in Civil  Appeal No.7535 of 2012.  It  was

observed that :  

“After  considering  the  pros  and  cons,  without entering into serious controversies and making any comment on the merit of the case, we are of the considered  opinion  that  in  view  of  the  judgment and order of this Court dated 26th November, 2010, which was passed in presence of  the counsel  for both the parties, the High Court ought not to have heard the matter at all.   Thus, the judgment and order  impugned  before  us  has  lost  its  sanctity. Therefore, the same is hereby set aside.   

However, in order to meet the ends of justice, we remand the case to the High Court to hear the writ petition  afresh  expeditiously  preferably  within  a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order before the Hon’ble Chief Justice.  The matter may be assigned to any particular  Bench  by  the  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice  for final  disposal.   The  parties  shall  be  at  liberty  to raise  all  factual  and  legal  issues  involved  in  the case.  The High Court is requested to deal with the relevant issues in detail.

More  so,  if  the  respondents  are  so  aggrieved regarding withdrawal  of  their  appeals,  which  had been remanded by this Court for determining the entitlement of interest under Section 23-(1A) of the Land  Acquisition  Act,  1984  and  an  application  is

Page 4

4

made by the respondent to revive the same, the High  Court  may  consider  and  decide  the  said application in accordance with Law.  All the matters shall be heard simultaneously by the same Bench if the appeals are restored. “   

3. Thereafter, the High Court considered the contention of

the appellants that the award in respect of compensation was

no award in the eye of law and though the possession was

taken  long  back  and  railway  line  had  been  laid  out,  the

acquisition  proceedings  were  liable  to  be  set  aside  and

compensation  was  liable  to  be  awarded  at  present  market

rate.   The High Court  rejected the said  plea  vide judgment

dated 30th May,  2014 in  Writ-C No.77449 of  2005.    It  was

observed that objection of the appellants against the award

had  already  been  considered  and  remand  by  the  Supreme

Court on 12th September, 2005 was only in respect of statutory

benefits.  For the first time plea was sought to be raised in the

writ  petition  against  validity  of  acquisition  which  was

impermissible in view of law laid down by this Court in Aflatoon

versus  Lt.  Governor  of  Delhi1,  Swaika  Properties  Pvt.  Ltd.

versus  State  of  Rajasthan2,  Sawaran  Lata  versus  State  of

1  (1975) 4 SCC 285  

2  (2008) 4 SCC 695

Page 5

5

Haryana3 and  Banda  Development  Authority,  Banda  versus

Moti Lal Agarwal4.  Judgment of this Court in Royal Orchid Hotel

versus  G.  Tayarama Reddy5 was  distinguished  as  that  case

related  to  fraudulent  exercise  of  power  of  eminent  domain.

The High Court concluded :  

“ 45. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the  writ  petition  is  highly  barred  by  latches  and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches alone.   

46. As has been observed above, the petitioners’ main  grievance  is  for  enhancement  of compensation, for which the petitioner has already filed First Appeal No.880 of 1993 and First Appeal No.401 of 1998 which appeals are being allowed by order of the date, we see no reason to entertain the writ petition.   

47.  Although,  various  submissions  on  merits challenging the entire acquisition proceedings have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, but we having taken the view that the writ petition is  highly  barred  by  latches,  we  do  not  find  it necessary to enter into the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners on merits. ”  

4. The appellant thereafter preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27109

of 2014 which was dismissed. However, it was observed that

3  (2010) 4 SCC 532

4  (2011) 5 SCC 394

5  (2011) 10 SCC 608

Page 6

6

appellants are at liberty to work out their grievance based on

the new Land Acquisition Act (2013) by preferring appropriate

proceedings.  The appellant thereafter filed W.P. No.77449 of

2005 from which these appeals have arisen.  

5.   The  High  Court  dismissed  the  writ  petition  with  the

following observations:  

“ From the facts as noticed herein above, we are of the considered opinion that not only the Award had been  made,  the  petitioners  had  also  filed  a Reference  Application  which  was  rejected  and against the Reference Order, they filed First Appeal, referred to above, which has also been dismissed. There is substance in the allegations made. ”

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.   

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that  in the

present  case  the  award  should  be  held  to  have  not  been

validly made and on that ground the proceedings should be

held to have lapsed.   

8.  We are unable to accept the above submission.  It  is

seen  from  the  above  resume  of  the  proceedings  that  the

appellants were paid compensation and possession was duly

taken.   The  appellants  also  preferred  reference  on  which

Page 7

7

higher compensation was awarded and matter attained finality

upto this Court.  The appellants thereafter filed a writ petition

challenging  the  acquisition  proceedings  which  was  held  to

barred by delay and latches against which SLP was dismissed

by this Court.  Of course, an observation was made that the

appellants could prefer appropriate proceedings based on their

grievance under the 2013 Act.   

9. The  grievance  of  the  appellants  against  acquisition

proceedings  on  the  ground  that  the  award  was  not  a  valid

award was rejected and SLP was dismissed by this Court but

permitting  a  fresh  challenge.   The  fact  remains  that  the

challenge of the appellants is barred by laches and the said

finding  does  not  suffer  from  any  infirmity.    Even  if  the

appellants were permitted to lay a fresh challenge, they are

required  to  overcome  this  legal  bar  which  in  our  view  the

appellants have not been able to overcome.  

Page 8

8

10. We, thus, do not find any error in the view taken by the

High Court.  The appeals are dismissed.  

………………………………………………..J.                           [ADARSH KUMAR

GOEL ]

………………………………………………..J.        [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]

NEW DELHI MAY 01, 2017