BANDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANDA versus MOTI LAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [2011] 7 S.C.R. 435 · Decided: 26-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 7 S.C.R. 435 
BANDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANDA 
v. 
MOTi LAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS 
{Civil Appeal No. 3604 of 2011) 
APRIL 26, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894- ss.4(1), 6(1), 11A, 17(1) and 
17(4): 
Writ petition filed by respondent no.1 challenging 
acquisition of land by the State Government on the ground 
that the award was not passed within two years from the date 
A 
B 
c 
of last publication of the declaration issued under s.6(1) -
Allowed by High Court - On appeal, held: In matters involving 
D 
challenge to the acquisition of land for public purpose, delay 
in filing the writ petition should be viewed seriously and relief 
denied to the petitioner if he fails to offer plausible explanation 
for the delay - Delay of even few years would be fatal to the 
cause of the petitioner, if the acquired land has been partly 
E 
or wholly utilised for the public purpose - On facts, the High 
Court was duty bound to take cognizance of the long time gap 
. of 9 years between the issue of declaration under s. 6(1) and 
filing of the writ petition and decline relief to respondent No. 1 
on the ground that he was guilty of /aches because the 
acquired land had been utilized for implementing a residential 
F 
scheme and third party rights had been created -
The 
unexplained delay of about six years between the passing of 
award and filing of writ petition was also sufficient for refusing 
to entertain the prayer made in the writ petition - Also the 
action of the concerned State authorities to go to the spot and G 
prepare panchnama showing delivery of possession was 
sufficient for recording a finding that actual possession of the 
entire acquired land had been taken and handed over to the 
development authority concerned i.e. BDA - Once it is held 
435 
H 
436 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2011] 7 S.C.R. 
A that possession of the acquired land was handed over to the 
BOA, the view taken by the High Court that the acquisition 
proceedings had lapsed due to non-compliance of s. 11 A 
cannot be sustained. 
8 
Mode of taking possession of the acquired land -
Principles culled out from earlier judgments - Held: No hard 
and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute 
taking of possession of the acquired land - If the acquired 
land is vacant, the act of the concerned State authority to go 
to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated 
C as sufficient to constitute taking of possession - If crop is 
standing on the acquired land or building/structure exists, 
mere going on the spot by the concerned authority will, by 
itself, be not sufficient for taking possession - Ordinarily, in 
such cases, the concerned authority will have to give notice 
D to the occupier of the building/structure or the person who has 
cultivated the land and take possession in the presence of 
independent witnesses and get their signatures on the 
panchnama - Of course, refusal of the owner of the land or 
building/structure may not lead to an inference that the 
E possession of the acquired land has not been taken - If the 
acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may not be possible 
for the acquiring/designated authority to take physical 
possession of each and evety parcel of the land and it will 
be sufficient that symbolic possession is taken by preparing 
F appropriate document in the presence of independent 
witnesses and getting their signatures on such document - If 
beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/instrumentality of 
the State and 80% of the total compensation is deposited in 
terms of s. 17(3A) and substantial portion of the acquired land 
G has been utilised in furtherance of the particular public 
purpose, then the Court may reasonably presume that 
possession of the acquired )and has been taken. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Effect of delay 
in filing writ petition - Discussed - Held: Though no limitation 
H 
BANDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANDA v. 
437 
MOTi LAL AGARWAL AND ORS. 
has been prescribed for filing a petition under Art.226 of the 
A 
Constitution, the High Court ought not to entertain petitions 
filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely 
affect the settled/crystallized rights of the parties - If the writ 
petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for 
filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the 
B 
delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of 
the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.