TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition challenging acquisition notifications and consequential proceedings could be entertained after an inordinate delay, particularly after the award had been passed and possession had been taken. (ii) Whether the conduct of the writ petitioners, including acceptance of the acquisition process and subsequent steps taken for execution of the award, disentitled them from discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issue (i): Whether a writ petition challenging acquisition notifications and consequential proceedings could be entertained after an inordinate delay, particularly after the award had been passed and possession had been taken.
Analysis: The challenge was brought many years after the acquisition notification, the award, and delivery of possession. In writ jurisdiction, delay and laches are material considerations, and equitable relief is ordinarily unavailable where the claimant has remained inactive for a long period and the acquisition proceedings have attained finality. Once the award has been made and possession taken, a belated attack on the acquisition is not ordinarily maintainable.
Conclusion: The delay rendered the writ challenge unsustainable, and relief ought not to have been granted.
Issue (ii): Whether the conduct of the writ petitioners, including acceptance of the acquisition process and subsequent steps taken for execution of the award, disentitled them from discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The record showed conduct inconsistent with a prompt challenge to the acquisition, including proceedings taken for execution of the award and steps linked to compensation. Such conduct attracted the equitable doctrines of acquiescence and approbation and reprobation, which bar a litigant from accepting benefits or proceeding on one footing and later challenging the same action on a contrary footing. The High Court also failed to give proper weight to the factual matrix and the settled principle that discretionary writ relief is not granted to an indolent litigant.
Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226, and the acquisition challenge failed on this ground as well.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was liable to be dismissed, the High Court's interference was set aside, and the acquisition proceedings were left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: In acquisition matters, a belated writ challenge after the award and possession, especially where the claimant's conduct shows acquiescence, is barred by delay and laches and does not warrant discretionary relief under Article 226.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
