SAWARAN LATA ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 4 S.C.R. 40 · Decided: 01-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 40 
SAWARAN LATA ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 11023-11026/2010) 
APRIL 01, 2010 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 6 - Land 
acquisition proceedings - Challenge to, at belated stage -
C Land acquisition proceedings in respect of huge chunk of land 
- Notification u/s. 4 and declaration u!s. 6 - Publication in 
newspapers - Award by Land Acquisition Collector -
Possession taken by State - Writ petition seeking quashing 
of land acquisition proceedings - Dismissed on the ground 
D of delay - Review petition also dismissed on the ground of 
delay -
On appeal, held: Notification u/s. 4 should be 
challenged within a reasonable period - Petition challenging 
the same is liable to be dismissed if it is challenged at a 
belated stage - On facts, not the case of the land owners that 
E they were not aware of acquisition proceedings - Very huge 
chunk of land belonging to large number of tenure holders 
had been notified for acquisition - Order of courts below not 
called for interference - SLPs having been filed with an 
inordinate delay of 172 days, dismissed - Limitation - Delay/ 
F /aches. 
Hari Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. AIR 1984 SC 1020; 
Aflatoon & Ors. vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 
2077; State of.Mysore vs. V.K. Kangan AIR 1975 SC 2190; 
PT. Girdharan Prasad Missir vs. State of Bihar (1980) 2 SCC 
G 83; Bhoop Singh vs. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 1414; State 
of Orissa vs. Dhobei Sethi & Anr. (1995) 5 SCC 583; State 
of Maharashtra vs. Digambar AIR 1995 SC 1991; State of 
Tamil Nadu vs. L. Krishnan AIR 1996 SC 497; C. Padma & 
Ors. vs. Dy. Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1997) 2 
H 
40 
SAWARAN LATA ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA & 
41 
ORS. 
SCC 627; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. 
A 
Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 
1997 SC 482; State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. O.R Laxmi & 
Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 445; Northern Indian Glass Industries vs. 
Jaswant Singh & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 234; Haryana State 
Handloom & Handicrafts Corporation Ltd. vs. Jain School B 
Society AIR 2004 SC 850, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR 1984 SC 1020 
Relied on. 
Para 6 
AIR 197 4 SC 2077 
Relied on. 
Para 7 
c 
AIR 1975 SC 2190 
Relied on. 
Para 8 
(1980) 2 sec 83 
Relied on. 
Para 8 
AIR 1992 SC 1414 
Relied on. 
Para ·8 
D 
(1995) 5 sec 583 
Relied on. 
Para 8 
AIR 1995 SC 1991 
Relied on. 
Para 8 
AIR 1996 SC 497 
Relied on. 
Para 8 
E 
(1997) 2 sec 627 
Relied on. 
Para 8 
AIR 1997 SC 482 
Relied on. 
Para 9 
(1996) 6 sec 445 
Relied on. 
Para 10 
F 
AIR 2003 SC 234 
Relied on. 
Para 11 
AIR 2004 SC 850 
Relied on. 
Para 11 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. 
11023-11026 of 2009. 
G 
From the Judgment & Orders dated 30.5.2009, 25.9.2009 
of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil 
Writ Petition No. 8794, RP 337 in CWP 8794 of 2009, Civil 
Writ Petition No. 8761 of 2009, RP No. 338 in CWP 8761 of 
2009. 
H 
42 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Dinesh Verma, Rajat Sharma, R.V. Kameshwaran for the 
B 
Petitioners. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. These special leave petitions 
reveal a very sorry state of affair and make it evident that litigants 
are eager to abuse the process of the Court, having no idea 
for the law of limitation/delay and laches. 
C 
2. These special leave petitions have been filed against 
the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court 
dated 30.5.2009 by which the Civil Writ Petition Nos.8794 of 
2009 and 8761 of 2009 have been dismissed only on the 
ground of delay. The Review Petitions were filed which were 
D also time barred by 48· days. The same stood dismissed vide 
order dated 25.9.2009. These special leave petitions have 
been filed with an inordinate delay of 172 days. Petitioners 
sought relief of quashing the land acquisition proceedings in 
respect of which the award had been made under Section 11 
E 
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as "Act 
1894") on 27.4.2004. 
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these 
petitions are that the respondent - State of Haryana issued a 
notification under Section 4 of Act 1894 in respect of a huge 
F 
chunk of land including some land of the petitioners on 2nd May, 
2001. Substance of the said notification was published in two 
newspapers on 5.5.2001. The respondents issued a declaration 
unde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.