Belated challenge to acquisition notifications failed where objections were heard through counsel and delay and laches barred relief.

Acquisition notifications under the Land Acquisition Act were not invalidated for want of a personal hearing because the objections had in fact been heard through counsel for the society, further objections were invited, and counsel declined to add anything more. The Court treated the allegation of denial of hearing as factually incorrect and held that a writ petitioner must fairly disclose material facts when invoking Article 226. The challenge was also barred by delay and laches because the notifications had been in force for years, the grounds were available from the outset, and the petition followed earlier withdrawals and repeated proceedings. The dismissal of the acquisition challenge was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the acquisition notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were liable to be invalidated for want of a personal hearing on objections under Section 5A; (ii) Whether the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Issue (i): Whether the acquisition notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were liable to be invalidated for want of a personal hearing on objections under Section 5A.

Analysis: The record showed that the objections had been heard through counsel representing the society, that the objector was given an opportunity to file further objections, and that counsel declined to add anything further. In those circumstances, the plea that no opportunity of hearing had been granted was found to be factually incorrect. A litigant invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is expected to disclose material facts fairly and cannot succeed on a concealed or baseless factual foundation.

Conclusion: The challenge based on denial of personal hearing failed and was held against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Analysis: The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued long before the writ petition was filed, and the grounds urged in challenge were available from the time of those notifications. The Court treated the later filing, after earlier withdrawals and repeated proceedings on the same acquisition, as inexcusable delay and laches. It relied on the principle that a party cannot wait on the fence and attack acquisition proceedings after allowing them to remain unchallenged for years.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held barred by delay and laches, and this issue was decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the dismissal of the challenge to the acquisition proceedings and found no basis to interfere with the High Court's order.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated writ challenge to acquisition notifications is liable to be dismissed when the grounds of attack were available from the outset, and a plea of denial of hearing under Section 5A fails where the objector was in fact heard through counsel and afforded an opportunity to respond further.

---