Ashok Bhushan and Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 8.11.2007 and notification issued under section 6 of the Act, 1894 dated 7.7.2008 with regard to Plot No. 474 situate in Village Khairpur Gurjar Pargana Dadri Tehsil Sadar District Gautambudhnagar. This writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid notifications after about 6 years on 17.1.2014. The challenge to the land acquisition proceedings is to be made within a reasonable time.
(2.) IN Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others : (2011) 11 ADJ 1, the issue of delay in approaching the Court has been considered and it has been laid down that challenge to the land acquisition proceedings after considerable delay cannot be entertained. Learned Counsel for the respondents have referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. and another v. State of Rajasthan and others : (2008) 4 SCC 695 : 2008 (64) AIC 15 (SC) (Sum.), where the writ petition filed after delivering of the award was held to be barred by laches. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that in land acquisition proceeding a tenure holder cannot be allowed to challenge the land acquisition proceeding after lapse of a reasonable time. The Court will not interfere with the land acquisition when the challenge is made with unexplained delay.
(3.) THE writ petition having been filed with no satisfactory explanation, the writ petition cannot be entertained. In the writ petition, the petitioner himself has not stated any satisfactory reason for not challenging the land acquisition within a reasonable time. The, writ petition being barred by laches is dismissed.;