Murlidhar, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against notifications, dated 26.10.1964 and 13.11.1964 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act respectively. By these notifications Nazul land of a number of plots in Gorakhpur town was purported to be acquired for purpose of providing residential accommodation for various categories of Government servant serving at Gorakhpur. The petitioners' plot is numbered as 101 and 1.58 acres of this plot is covered by the notifications in question. There is no dispute that the petitioners hold a lease of a plot of 3.86 acres of Nazul land in which a Kothi and certain outhouses stand in part. The disputed area covered by the notifications is part of this 3.86 acres and according to the counter-affidavit consists of bare land in the north western part of the compound. By the notification under Section 4 the provisions of Section 17 (4) were also applied to the acquisition proceedings and the inquiry under Section 5 (A) was waived. Again by the notification under Section 6 the matter was declared to be one of urgency and provisions of Section 17 (1) were applied and possession directed to be taken of waste or arable land covered by the notification on the expiry of fifteen days from the publication of the notice under Section 9 (1) of the Act.
(2.) The only ground of attack is that the impugned notifications are invalid in as much as the land in question form part of a compound of the Kothi and cannot be regarded as waste or arable land and, therefore, Section 17 (4) or 17 (1) could not apply to it. In as much as each notification by applying either Section 17(4) or 17 (1) wrongly assumes that the land as waste or arable land this defect allegedly invalidates that the notifications in to to including the parts other than pertinent to Sections 17 (4) and 17 (1). Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 778 of 1965 Yogeshwari Devi and another v. State of U.P. and others decided by a Single Judge on 23.11.1967 confirmed in special Appeal No. 97 of 1968 State of U.P. and others v. Yogeshwari Devi and another dismissed by the Division Bench on 3.10.69 . That case pertained to 4.83 acres of plot no. 120 acquired by the same notifications. This Court quashed the notifications to the extent of the land in controversy in that case. The ground was the precise one now relied upon viz, that the 4.83 acres of plot no. 120 formed part of compound of a Kothi constructed on lease-hold Nazul land and hence could not be regarded as waste or arable land.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel we have come to the conclusion that the present petition cannot succeed because of suffering from the fatal defect of inordinate delay. As noted earlier, the notifications are of the year 1964. The counter-affidavit shows that the petitioner had filed an objection to the notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter provision under Section 17 was taken on 8.1.1965. The petitioner was, therefore, well aware of the acquisition proceedings. Even so he chose to keep quiet for over 8 years and filed this petition only on 31.1.1973. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to urge that the petitioner did not initially know of the acquisition proceedings. In view of the allegations iD the counter-affidavit which have not been controverted, we have no hesitation in rejecting this assertion. It is well settled that a party seeking the extra-ordinary remedy provided by Article 226 must come to the court with the utmost despatch. It was then contended that the petitioner had been pursuing the matter first by seeking permission of the authorities to himself construct the residential tenements on the land in dispute and later on seeking release of the acquired land through approaching Ministers and governmental authorities and that the request was finally turned down in December 1972 as stated in the counter-affidavit of Smt. Madhuri Srivastava, Deputy Secretary. Copies of some correspondence have been filed in support of these allegations. We cannot agree that these efforts for retrieving the property can be treated as sufficient grounds for entertaining the petition after such long delay. It is not open to a petitioner to allow years to go by in pursuing other reliefs and when he fails therein to attack the orders in certiorari under Article 226. It was lastly urged that it would be anomalous to have the notification held valid for plot no. 101 when it had been quashed for plot number 120. This argument is also devoid of merit. In as much as the petition fails on the ground of delay the stage of examining the facts and finding that the case is similar to that of plot no. 120 is not reached. Again even if we assume that the area of plot no. 101 is also compound of a kothi, there is no difficulty in having the notification invalidated with regard to one plot and held valid with regard to the other. The same result would follow if one owner chooses to question the acquisition and the other docs not do it irrespective of the possible argument in his favour. The previous decision regarding plot no. 120, therefore, cannot be of any assistance of the petitioner.;