Section 6 declaration period exclusion in composite acquisition upheld; delay, laches, and parity claims failed.

In a composite land acquisition scheme, the period for issuing a Section 6 declaration was held to be excluded broadly where court-ordered restraint operated in connected matters under Explanation 1 to the first proviso, so declarations issued after that restraint were not invalid on limitation grounds. Relief granted in other writ petitions did not automatically extend to landowners who had not independently secured or pursued their own challenge, and the challenge was also rejected for inordinate delay and laches because the writ petitions were filed long after the cause of action arose. The acquisition notifications and declarations were therefore upheld against these appellants.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expiry of the period for making a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be computed without excluding the period covered by interim stay orders passed in connected matters, and whether quashing of the declaration in other cases enured to the benefit of landowners who had not approached the Court; (ii) Whether the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Issue (i): Whether the expiry of the period for making a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be computed without excluding the period covered by interim stay orders passed in connected matters, and whether quashing of the declaration in other cases enured to the benefit of landowners who had not approached the Court.

Analysis: Explanation 1 to the first proviso to Section 6 was held to apply broadly where any action or proceeding pursuant to the Section 4 notification was stayed by a court. The stay in connected land-acquisition matters was treated as affecting the progress of the composite acquisition scheme, and the Court accepted that declarations issued after the period of restraint could not be faulted merely because the particular appellants had not obtained separate stay orders. The Court also relied on the earlier three-Judge decision holding that quashing of the declaration in other writ petitions did not automatically extend to persons who had not filed objections under Section 5A and had not secured relief in their own proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Section 6 declarations on the ground of limitation and parity with other successful litigants was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Analysis: The acquisition process had commenced in 1980 and the cause to challenge the later declarations had arisen in 1985, yet several petitions were filed only after a long interval. The Court held that the explanations offered did not satisfactorily account for the prolonged inaction, and that the supposed confusion or eclipse period did not justify such delay in invoking writ jurisdiction after many years. In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in declining relief on the ground of laches.

Conclusion: The petitions were rightly dismissed for delay and laches.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the acquisition notifications and declarations as against these appellants and declined to extend to them the benefit of relief granted in other matters, leaving no ground for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: In a composite land acquisition scheme, the period excluded by Explanation 1 to the first proviso to Section 6 operates broadly where court-ordered restraint exists in connected matters, but quashing of a declaration in other cases does not automatically enure to landowners who did not independently secure or pursue relief, especially where their challenge is barred by inordinate delay and laches.

---