Miss Lucy
← All judgments

State Of Orissa vs Dhobei Sethi And Another

Supreme Court29 August 1995K. Ramaswamy · B.L Hansaria

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A subsequent purchaser of land, acquiring interest after a notification under s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been published, cannot challenge the validity of that acquisition on the ground that the urgency clause under s. 17(4) was improperly invoked to dispense with the enquiry under s. 5-A. Where a notification under s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued and a writ petition challenging its validity is filed more than seven years thereafter, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on the ground of laches and should not upset the notification in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

PETITIONER:STATE OF ORISSA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:DHOBEI SETHI AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT29/08/1995
BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K.BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K.HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:1995 SCC (5) 583 JT 1995 (6) 6241995 SCALE (5)188
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:

O R D E R Though notice has been served on the respondents, no one has appeared in person or through counsel.

A notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act [for short, `the Act'] was published on July 16, 1970 acquiring Ac. 2. 202 dec. of land in Survey Nos. 2309-2316, 2318, 2501, 2506-10, 2530-32 situated at village Pubakhand for the purpose of construction of the Tahasil office building and staff quarters at Niali. Along with the said notification, the appellant invoked the urgency clause under s. 17 (4) of the Act dispensing with the enquiry under 5-A of the Act. The declaration under s. 6 of the Act was published on April 27, 1972. Notice under ss. 9 and 10 was published in the locality in December, 1975 and possession of the land was taken on December 16, 1976. Sometime in 1977 O. J. C. No.43 of 1977 was filed questioning the validity of the exercise of power under s.17(4) dispensing with the enquiry under s. 5-A. Similarly, some other owners filed O.J.C. No.1573 of 1978, claiming interest for part of the land pursuant to a sale made after the notification namely in November, 1973. Both the writ petitions were allowed by the High Court on the ground that there was no justification to dispense with the enquiry under s. 5-A and public purpose would have been served by allowing the claimants to submit their objections.

As regards the second writ petition, namely, OJC 1573 of 1978, the petitioner therein cannot raise this objection because he is a subsequent purchaser and that the High Court was unjustified in allowing the writ petition.

As regards OJC 43 of 1977, in view of the fact that the notification was issued as early as on July 16, 1970, the writ petition having been filed after 7 years, the High court ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches. We, therefore, hold that the High Court has not properly exercised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution in upsetting the notification dated December 16, 1970 after a lapse of 7 years.

The appeal are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without costs.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free