NON-REPORTABLE              

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 304-305 OF 2005  

A.P. Industrial Infrastructure .....Appellant.    Corpn. Ltd.

        Versus

Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao & Ors.       …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T   

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment  and Order  dated 23rd July,  

2001 in Writ Appeal No. 1337 of 1999 and  Review W.A.M.P. No.  

1822 of 2002 in Writ Appeal No. 1337 of 1999 dated 01st October,  

2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at  

Hyderabad, these appeals have been filed by the original petitioners-

respondents herein, whose lands have been acquired by the State for a  

public purpose.

1

2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell  are as  

under:

A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,  

1894  (in  short  the  ‘Act’)  was  issued  on  27th August,  1993  for  

acquisition of land admeasuring 101 acres and 33 cents in and around  

Eluru town for a public purpose for setting up an Auto Nagar so as to  

develop the said land for industrial purpose.  On  20th September, 1993  

and 21st September, 1993, the said notification was published in two  

daily newspapers whereas on 29th September, 1993 the substance of  

the said notification was published in the locality where the land was  

situated.  Looking into the urgency, under the provisions of Section 17  

of the Act, an inquiry under Section 5 A of the Act was dispensed  

with.   Thereafter  notification  with  regard  to  the  declaration  under  

Section 6 of the Act was published on 8th October,  1993.   A Writ  

Petition  No.  5036  of  1994  was  filed  on  18th September,  1995  

challenging  the  validity  of  the  proceedings  on  the  ground that  the  

provision of Section 17 of the Act could not have been invoked for  

dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and in the  

said petition, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had passed an interim  

order whereby the authorities were restrained from taking possession  

2

of  the  land  in  question.   Ultimately  the  said  petition  was  finally  

disposed of on 18th September, 1995 whereby the declaration under  

Section 6 had been quashed and it was directed to hold an enquiry  

under Section 5A of the Act.

In  pursuance  to  the  above  order  passed  by  the  High  Court,  

necessary enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was made, objections  

were invited and ultimately it was decided to acquire only 54 acres  

and 54 cents land out of the land in question admeasuring 101 acres  

and 33 cents.  Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was thereafter  

published on 7th August, 1996.

After making declaration under Section 6 of the Act,  Award  

was made on 7th January, 1998 and possession of the land in question  

was taken on 9th March, 1998. After possession of land in question  

was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer from the owners of the  

land, on 16th July, 1998, the Land Acquisition Officer handed over  

possession of the land in question to the present appellant-Corporation  

for a public purpose, for which the land in question had been acquired.

It is pertinent to note that after declaration under Section 6 of  

the Act made on 7th August, 1996 and after taking possession of the  

3

land in question on 9th March, 1998, writ petition No. 32806 of 1998  

was  filed  in  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh  challenging  the  

validity of declaration under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that  

the  declaration  was  not  made  within  the  period  prescribed  under  

Section 6 of the Act.  

By an order dated 27th August, 1999, the learned Single Judge  

dismissed  the  aforesaid  writ  petition  after  recording  the  fact  that  

award was made on 7th January, 1998 and possession of the land in  

question had been handed over to the present appellant on 9th March,  

1998.   Moreover,  the  learned  Single  Judge  also  held  that  the  

declaration  under  Section  6  was made  within  the  period stipulated  

under Section 6  of the Act.

Being  aggrieved  by  the  dismissal  of  the  petition,  the  land  

owners-the present respondents filed Writ Appeal no. 1337 of 1999.  

The said Writ Appeal was allowed by an order dated 23rd July, 2001  

whereby  the  order  passed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  dated  27th  

August, 1999 was quashed and set aside as it was held by the Division  

Bench of the High Court that the declaration under Section 6 of the  

Act was made beyond the period prescribed under Section 6 of the  

Act.

4

Being  aggrieved  by  the  said  Judgment  and  Order,  A.P.  

Industrial  Infrastucture  Corporation-  the  present  appellant  filed  a  

Review  petition  being  Review WAMP No.  1822  of  2002  in  Writ  

Appeal  No.  1337  of  1999  on  29th August,  2001  which  was  also  

dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned  

judgment and order on 01st October, 2004.

3. Being aggrieved by the above judgment and orders passed by  

the Division Bench of the High Court these appeals have been filed by  

the  A.P.  Industrial  Infrastructure  Corporation  Ltd.,  which  is  an  

undertaking owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for whose  

benefit the land in question had been acquired.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly made  

two submissions: the first is with regard to the delay caused in filing  

the petition or initiation of litigation challenging the validity of the  

acquisition proceedings and the Second is with regard to delay caused  

in making the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.  According to  

him  the  declaration  was  made  within  the  period  prescribed  under  

Section 6 of the Act.

5

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the land  

owners  supported  the  reasons  given  by  the  Division  Bench  of  the  

Andhra Pradesh High Court and submitted  that the declaration under  

Section 6 was made beyond the period prescribed under Section 6 of  

the Act.

6. We have heard the  learned counsel  at  great  length.   Several  

judgments were cited by the learned counsel so as to substantiate their  

cases.  In our view there was substantial delay caused in filing the  

petition  before  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  whereby  the  land  

acquisition proceedings had been challenged by the land owners and,  

therefore,  we  would  not  like  to  go  into  other  reasons  and  other  

submissions which pertain to delay causing making declaration under  

Section 6 of the Act.

7. It is not in dispute that Notification under Section 4 of the Act  

was issued on 27th August, 1993 and it was lastly published, in the  

locality where the land is situated, on 29th September, 1993.  We have  

already referred to the earlier litigation and the objections filed by the  

land owners and decision with regard to the land acquisition officer  

and  the  Government  Authorities  for  not  acquiring  the  entire  land,  

6

which was sought to be acquired at an earlier stage.  Ultimately the  

land admeasuring 54 acres and 54 cents had been acquired out of the  

land in question admeasuring 101 acres and 33 cents .  It is not in  

dispute that the Declaration under Section 6 was made on 7th August,  

1996 and an award was made on 7th January, 1998.   Though there is  

some dispute with regard to the fact of taking possession of the land, it  

is an admitted fact that atleast paper possession of the land in question  

was taken on 9th March, 1998 and possession was handed over to the  

appellant on 16th July, 1998.

8. Thus, it is an admitted fact that declaration under Section 6 of  

the Act was made on 7th August, 1996 and the Award was made on 7th  

January, 1998.   A petition challenging the validity of the declaration  

under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that it was declared beyond  

the  period  specified  under  Section  6  of  the  Act  was  filed  in  

November,  1998.   In  our  opinion,  the  petition  had been filed  at  a  

belated  stage.   If  the  land  owners  were  really  aggrieved  by  the  

declaration under Section 6 of the Act, they ought to have challenged  

the same immediately after the declaration under Section 6 was made.  

For the reasons best known to them, they waited for more than two  

years.  Award was made on 7th January, 1998 and even possession was  

7

taken on 9th March, 1998 and  on 16th July, 1998, the possession was  

also handed over to the present appellant so that it can use the land in  

question for a public purpose for which it had been acquired.  

9. The learned Single Judge duly recorded the fact that possession  

of the land in question was taken from the land owners on 9th March,  

1998.

10. We see no reason for the land owners to wait for a few years for  

challenging the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on the  

ground of delay.  If the land owners had been really aggrieved, they  

ought  to  have  challenged  the  proceedings  immediately  after  

declaration made under Section 6 of the Act.

11. This Court has held in several judgments that if the land owners  

are aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings, they must challenge the  

same atleast before an award is made and the possession of the land in  

question is taken by the government authorities.  

It has been held in Swaika Propeties (P) Ltd. & Another vs.  

State of Rajasthan & Others [(2008) 4 SCC 695] as under:

8

“6. 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  Municipal  Corpn.  of  Greater  Bombay v.  Industrial  

Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 11 SCC 501  

where K. Ramaswamy, J. speaking for a Bench consisting  

of His Lordship and S.B. Majmudar, J. held: (SCC p. 520,  

para 29)

“29. It is thus well-settled law that when there  is inordinate 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  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 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 laches.”

Similarly, in the case of  State of Rajasthan & Ors.  vs.  D.R.  

Laxmi & Ors.  [(1996)  6  SCC 445] following the decision of  this  

9

Court  in  the  case  of   Municipal  Corporation  of  Greater  Bombay  

(supra) it was held :

".... 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  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 laches. ...."

To  the  similar  effect  is  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Municipal  

Council, Ahmednagar & Another  vs. Shah Hyder Beig & Ors. [(2000) 2  

SCC 48]  wherein  this  Court,  following  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  C.  

Padma  and Others   vs. Dy.  Secy.  to  the  Govt.  of  T.N.  and Others  

[(1997)2 SCC 627]  held: (Shah Hyder case SCC p. 55, para 17)

“17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition  

can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against  

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. [(1997) 2 SCC  

627]….”

10

12. Therefore,  we  are  not  referring  to  the  other  judgments,  

which have been cited by the learned counsel on the subject of validity of  

declaration made under Section 6 of he Act for the reasons that we are  

convinced that there was gross delay in challenging the validity of the  

acquisition proceedings.

13.    It is also pertinent to note that according to the appellant,  

possession of the land in question had been handed over to the appellant-

Corporation on 16th July, 1998 and in view of the said fact, this Court had  

granted interim stay in favour of the appellant on 10th January, 2005 and  

an application made by the land owners for vacating the said stay had  

been rejected and it was directed to maintain status quo.   

14.           Looking to the facts of the present case and in the light of the  

law laid down by this Court, which has been referred to hereinabove, we  

firmly believe that the petition filed by the land owners was at a belated  

stage.  For  the  said  reason,  we  do  not  desire  to  interfere  with  the  

acquisition  proceedings, which had been challenged after more than two  

years of declaration under Section 6 of the Act  and on that ground alone  

we feel that appeals deserve to be allowed.

11

15.  The impugned judgment and orders passed by the Division  

Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is quashed and set aside. The  

appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.  

              …..……………...........................J.                (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

              …….…………...........................J. (ANIL R. DAVE)

New Delhi September 15, 2011.  

12