D.B. Bhosale, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for final hearing. Mr. Kanthak, learned Advocate General waive service on behalf of the respondents.
3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the acquisition proceedings after the service of notice dated 5.11.2007 under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act). The only prayer made in the writ petition reads thus:
(a) For the writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing acquisition proceedings initiated by the notification at annexure 'A' as same being lapsed and consequently the award and notice at annexure 'B'.
4. Annexure 'A', referred to in the prayer, is Section 6 notification dated 9.10.2004 and annexure 'B' is the notice dated 5.11.2007 under Section 12(2) of the Act. The award under Section 11 was passed on 22.9.2006. Initially, the challenge was on the ground that the award dated 22.9.2006 is null and void inasmuch as the same was passed by respondent No. 2 after the expiry of two years period contemplated by Section 11A of the Act from the date of Section 6 notification which was issued on 10.8.2004. The writ petition was filed on 21st November, 2007. The petitioner thereafter by way of an amendment, which was allowed on 7.1.2008, challenged the notification under Section 6 on the ground that it was issued beyond the period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4.
5. The facts that are relevant and necessary for considering the questions raised in the writ petition in brief, are as under: By the notification dated 1.11.2002, the first respondent in exercise of powers conferred on it under Section 4 of the Act, notified that 1,11,784 sq. mtrs. of the properties bearing survey Nos. 44/1 and 44/3 (for short the said land) were likely to be needed for the purpose of school buildings in pursuance of the Government decision to have Integrated School Complex of nine schools at one place. The said notification was published in the official gazette on 26.11.2002. In response to the publication of the said notification a representation dated 4.12.2002 was made by the petitioners, addressed to the Land Acquisition Officer. The respondents, thereafter declared under Section 6 of the Act that the said lands were needed by the Government for the public purpose. On 1.3.2004 the notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued.
6. The petitioners at that stage challenged the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in writ petition No. 203 of 2004 mainly on the ground that the hearing under Section 5A had not been accorded to the petitioners as also on the ground that the notification under Section 6 was beyond limitation period as provided for under Clause (ii) of the first proviso appended to Sub section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. That writ petition was filed on 15th April, 2004, that is, long after expiry of the period of one year from the date of Section 4 notificiation. This Court had granted order of status quo of possession vide order dated 5th May, 2004. The said writ petition was ultimately disposed of vide order dated 21st June, 2004. The order disposing of writ petition No. 203 of 2004 reads thus:
The petitioner challenges the acquisition of the land in question on two grounds.
Firstly, according to the petitioner the notification under Section 4 states that the land is being acquired for public purpose of a school building, whereas according to the petitioner, the land is being acquired for an integral complex of eight schools at Panaji which according to the petitioner is contrary to the public purpose stated in the notification. We find no merit in the contention. The next contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the hearing under Section 5(a) has not been accorded to the petitioner. Apparently the petitioner resides at Nairobi. She had given the address of her constituted attorney. Learned Counsel for the respondents stated that an attempt was made to serve the petitioner on that address, but the constituted attorney refused to take the notice on behalf of the petitioner.
Having regard to the importance of the right of being heard, we are of view that in the interest of justice the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity of being heard.
Hence we direct the respondents to hear the petitioner on 6th July, 2004. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No. 3 on that day. In view of the fact that we consider the procedure vitiated because the petitioner was not heard, we set aside the notifications issued under Sections 6 and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
We make it clear that the petitioner may file such documents or representation well in advance of the hearing on 6th July, 2004.
7. After disposal of the writ petition, hearing under Section 5A was accorded to the petitioners on the date fixed by this Court, that is, 6.7.2004 and thereafter a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 9.8.2005 and the same was published in the official gazette on 10.8.2004 declaring that the said lands were needed for public purpose, namely, for construction of the school buildings. The final publication of Section 6 notification, by affixing, was on 30.9.2004.
8. In the backdrop of the facts mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs the questions that fall for our consideration are: Whether in the facts of the present case, is it open for the petitioners to challenge the acquisition on the ground that Section 6 notification was issued beyond the period of one year as provided for under Clause (ii) of the first proviso appended to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 from the date of Section 4 notification ?. If this question is answered in the affirmative then the further question, that will have to be addressed, is whether the acquisition proceedings in the present case deserve, to be quashed and set aside on the ground that Section 6 notification was issued after expiry of the period of one year from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act ?; and whether the acquisition deserves to be set aside on the ground that the award is passed after the expiry of two years period from the date of Section 6 notification.
9. The submissions of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners are three fold. Firstly, the fresh declaration under Section 6, which admittedly was issued beyond the prescribed period of one year from the notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, deserves to be set aside, it being nullity. He submitted, that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 would be void and of no effect. Secondly, whether participation of the petitioners in the further proceedings and/or their conduct, after the earlier writ petition was disposed of, would constitute any waiver; and thirdly, on the ground that the award was passed beyond the period of two years from the date of notification under Section 6 of the Act and, therefore, on this ground also the acquisition vitiates. A detail reference to the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties will be made at the appropriate stages in the later part of the judgment. Before we deal with the questions in the light of the contentions urged by learned Counsel for the parties it would be advantageous to refer to the following judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Counsel in support of their submissions.
10. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Padma Sundara Rao (Dead)and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors. : [2002]255ITR147(SC) was considering the question whether after quashing of notification under Section 6 of the Act, fresh period of one year is available to the State Government to issue another notification under Section 6. In that case the notification issued under Section 6 was questioned before the Madras High Court which relied on the decision of a three-Judge Bench in N. Narasimhaiah v. State of Karnataka : [1996]1SCR698 and held that the same was validly issued. The appellant therein had placed reliance on an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in A.S. Naidu v. State of T.N. in SLPs (C) Nos. 11353-55 of 1988 wherein a bench of three Judges held that once a declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been quashed, fresh declaration under Section 6 cannot be issued beyond prescribed period of the notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. The Supreme Court had noted that there was another judgment of two learned Judges in Oxford English School v. Government of T.N. : AIR1995SC2398a which takes a view similar to that expressed in A.S. Naidu's case. It was further noticed that in State of Karnataka v. D.C. Nanjudaiah : (1996)10SCC619 , the view in Narasimhaiah (supra) was followed and it was held that the limitation of three years for publication of the declaration would start running from the date of receipt of the order of the High Court and not from the date on which the original publication under Section 4(1) came to be made. This controversy was resolved by the Supreme Court by affirming the view expressed in A.S.Naidu's case (supra) and Oxford English School's (supra) case holding that the view expressed in Narasimhaiah and Nanjudaiah's case (supra) is not correct and overruled the same.
11. In Oxford English School's case (supra) the question that fell for consideration of the Supreme Court was whether a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act can be made in respect of any land notified under Section 4(1) after the expiry of three years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1). The question was answered in the negative. The facts of this case need to be noted. In April 1987, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madras challenging the acquisition proceedings. On 12.5.1987 the appellant had obtained an interim order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellant. The contention of the appellant in the said writ petition that the provisions of Rule 3(b) framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 55(1) of the Act, which are mandatory in nature, had not been complied with in their case, had been upheld by the Division Bench in the judgment impugned before the Supreme Court dated 28.4.1994. The Division Bench had set aside the entire acquisition proceedings after the stage of Section 4(1) notification and had allowed the writ petition accordingly in part. The Division Bench had, however, directed that there shall be a fresh enquiry under Section 5A of the Act in accordance with law. It had further directed that the enquiry shall be completed and if the Government decides to proceed with the acquisition, the declaration shall be issued under Section 6 of the Act within six months from the date of the judgment and the award shall be passed within four months thereafter. These latter directions dealing with a fresh enquiry under Section 5A and subsequent steps directed to be taken by the High Court were the subject matter of challenge in the appeal before the Supreme Court in that case. The findings of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court setting aside the acquisition proceedings after the stage of Section 4(1) notification had not been challenged before the Supreme Court.
12. The Supreme Court in yet another judgment in Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 2007 SCR 582 after considering the provisions contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 6 observed that any declaration made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification under subsection (1) of Section 4 would be void and of no effect. The Supreme Court further observed that the purport and object of the provisions of the Act and in particular the proviso which had been inserted by Act 68 of 1994, which came into force w.e.f. 24.9.1994, must be given its full effect. The said provision was inserted for the benefit of the owners of the land. Such a statutory benefit, thus, cannot be taken away by a purported construction of an order of a court which, in our opinion, is absolutely clear and explicit.
13. It is thus clear that in terms of the proviso, to Section 6(1) which was introduced by the Act 68 of 1984, the declaration cannot be made under Section 6 in respect of any land covered by notification under Section 4(1) of the Act after the expiry of one year from the date of its publication. The proviso deals with two types of situation which provides for different period of limitation depending upon the question whether the notification under Section 4(1) was published. Any declaration under Section 6 made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 would be void and of no effect. The statutory benefit given under this provision, keeping purport and objects of the provisions of the Act and in particular the proviso which had been inserted by Act 68 of 1984 and which came into force with effect from 24.9.1984, must be given to the owners of land. Such a statutory benefit cannot be taken away unless the landlord waives statutory right by express consent or by conduct. The purpose for providing the period of limitation, as observed by the Supreme Court in Padma Sundara Rao's case (supra), seems to be the avoidance of inconvenience to a person whose land is sought to be acquired. A new lease of life in the cases where declaration under Section 6 is quashed cannot be given inasmuch as if the legislature intended to give a new lease of life in such cases, there was no reason why it could not have done so by specifically providing for it as observed by the Supreme Court in that case.
14. In the present case, the order of the Division Bench dated 21st June, 2004 disposing of writ petition No. 203 of 2004 and directing to hold fresh enquiry under Section 5A of the Act in accordance with law, without touching Section 4(1) notification though it was challenged in that writ petition, was not carried by the petitioners to the Supreme Court, as it happened in Oxford English School's case. The petitioners accepted the order dated 21.6.2004 and participated in all further proceedings without any reservation.
15. It is against this backdrop we would now like to consider the contentions urged by Mr. Coelho, learned senior counsel that whether it is possible for the petitioners to contend, as stated in paragraph 14(a) of the petition, that the notification under Section 6 deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground that it has been issued beyond the period of one year from the date of notification under Section 4 and that the petitioners participation in the proceedings after setting aside the first notification under Section 6 cannot constitute any waiver and/or give a go-bye to the said statutory mandate. We heard learned Counsel for the parties at great length on the question as to whether conduct of the petitioners constitute any waiver. The learned Advocate General for the State submitted that merely because Section 6 notification is beyond one year, epso facto it does not become invalid. In other words, he submitted that it was open for the petitioners to waive their statutory right and if they have done so by conduct, the notification under Section 6 beyond the period of one year is valid. He submitted that the conduct of the petitioners' right from the stage when the earlier writ petition was filed in this Court till this date clearly demonstrates that the petitioners waived their right to challenge Section 6 notification on the ground of limitation. Mr. Coelho, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder submitted that the question of waiver cannot be gone into in this case because there is no express plea on the part of the State that the petitioners had waived this right in the context of plea in the petition.
16. The petitioners after filing the instant writ petition on 21st November, 2007, on 11th January, 2008 amended the petition pursuant to the order dated 7.1.2008 and introduced the following paragraphs keeping the prayer clause in the petition intact:
14(a) it is stated and submitted that the said Notification under Section 6 has been issued beyond the period of one year from the date of publication of the said Notification under Section 4. The Petitioners state and submit that the said action is in violation of the 1st Proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and as such, the proceedings thereafter taken are ultra-vires the Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
14(b) Though the Petitioners filed their representation before the said authority, the same cannot constitute any waiver and/or give a go-bye to the said statutory mandate. It is stated and submitted that the Petitioners participated at the said proceedings unaware of the statutory mandate under Section 6 and unaware of the rights and legal implications arising from the extemporaneous declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In fact, the Petitioners for the first time became aware of the said declaration and the law,once the Petitioners inspected the file on 4.1.2008, and were advised by their lawyer that the declaration under Section 6 was issued in violation of the said provision.
18(a) The Petitioners state and submit for a fact, that the declaration under Section 6 has been made after a period of one year from the date Notification under Section 4 is published. The entire proceedings proceeded pursuant to the said Notification are ultra-vires and void, in as much as, the Respondents are not empowered to make a declaration in respect of any land covered by Section 4, after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the Notification. The proceedings thereafter taken are nonest in the eye of law, and therefore, the entire proceedings proceeded pursuant to the said Notification at Exhibit- A and C are ultra-vires the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are nonest.
27(a) The proceedings taken pursuant to the Notification at Exhibit-C and/or declaration under Section 6 on 9-8-2004 are nonest and bad in law and ultra-vires the provisions of the Constitution, and the Petitioners' land is sought to be acquired against the provisions of law and against the mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution, and therefore, violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.
17. A mere perusal of the averments in the writ petition, introduced by way of amendment, clearly show that the petitioners claim that their participation in the proceedings after the order of High Court cannot constitute any waiver. Respondent No. 2 in their affidavit after denying the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition on the point of limitation have clearly stated that the entire exercise, after the order passed by the High Court in the earlier writ petition, was conducted as per the directions of this Court and in view of the petitioners participation in the proceedings, the petitioners are prevented from agitating before this Court that the proceedings are vitiated on the ground of limitation. This averment in the reply affidavit, clearly show that, though the expression waiver was not used by the State, they mean that the petitioner waived their said right. Thus, the submission that there is no express plea is factually incorrect. That apart, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioners of their own have stated that their subsequent conduct does not constitute any waiver. In view thereof it has become necessary to examine the contentions of the parties in respect of waiver.
18. Before we proceed further, it would be appropriate to notice some relevant facts which have not been and could not be disputed by the petitioners:
(a) Writ petition No. 203 of 2004 was filed by the petitioners on 15th April, 2004 challenging the notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Act mainly on the ground that the notification under Section 6 was issued in violation of the mandate of Section 5A of the Act and that it was issued beyond the limitation period. This Court vide order dated 21.6.2004, however, upheld the first contention of the petitioners, as seen from the order quoted above, and set aside the notification issued under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act and directed the respondents to accord hearing to the petitioner. This order was not challenged either by the petitioner or by the State.
(b) In pursuance of the order dated 21.6.2004, passed in the earlier writ petition, the hearing was accorded to the petitioners on 6th July, 2004. After hearing, the petitioners, as per the directions of this Court, on 6th July, 2004 a fresh notification under Section 6 was made on 9.8.2004, which was gazetted on 10.8.2004 and published on 30.9.2004 by affixing at the site.
(c) The notice under Section 9 was issued on 2.11.2004 and was published at the site on 22.11.2004. The petitioners in response to the notice under Section 9 lodged the claim vide their representation dated 25.1.2005.
(d) The petitioners thereafter participated in the award proceedings. The award under Section 11 was made on 22.9.2006. The notice under Section 12(2) was issued on 15.11.2007. Thereafter the present writ petition was filed on 21.11.2007. After filing of the writ petition, an application under Section 18 of the Act has been filed by the petitioners on 24.12.2007, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the present petition. The ground of limitation that the notification under Section 6 has been issued beyond the period of one year came to be introduced by way of amendment on 11.1.2008.
19. It is against this backdrop it was vehemently submitted that the conduct of the petitioners clearly demonstrate that they had waived their right, it being a statutory right and, therefore, the notification under Section 6, published beyond the period of one year, is valid.
20. Mr. Coelho, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that in order to constitute waiver, there must be voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a right. The essence of a waiver is an estoppel and where there is no estoppel, there is no waiver. In support of this proposition he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants Association and Ors. 1998 (1) Bom.C.R. 578. He then submitted that the waiver is a question of fact which must be expressely pleaded and clearly proved. No such plea had been raised by the State in the present case and as such, such a question cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in this Court. In support of this contention he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Joginder Singh Sodhi v. Amar Kaur : (2005)1SCC31 .
Mr. Coelho further submitted that the waiver is permissible, subject to the condition that no public interest is involved therein. In other words right can be waived by the party for whose benefit certain requirements or conditions had been provided by a statute subject to condition that no public interest is involved therein. Whenever waiver is pleaded it is for the party pleading the same to show that an agreement waiving the right in consideration of some compromise came into being. In support of this contention he placed reliance on the judgment in case of Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre and Ors. : (2004)IIILLJ555SC .
21. On the other hand the learned Advocate General in support of his contention that merely because Section 6 notification is beyond the period of one year, epso facto does not become invalid and it is open for the petitioners to waive their statutory right either expressly or by conduct. He placed reliance upon the following judgments: Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (D) by L.Rs. and Ors. : AIR2005SC3708 , the judgment of this Court in John Moses Fernandes and Anr. v. State of Goa and Ors. 1997(4) ALL M.R. 45, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. and Ors. v. Kollutla Obi Reddy and Ors. : AIR2006SC642 , Reliance Petroluem Ltd. v. Zaverchand Popatlal Sumaria : (1996)4SCC579 , the State of Kerala v. M.K.Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil (dead) and Ors. : AIR1996SC906 , Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat : [1998]2SCR339 and Delhi Administration v. G.S. Uban : (2000)7SCC296 .
22. In Reliance Petroleum Ltd. (supra) it appears that when the matter was before the Land Acquisition Officer and before an award was passed the land owners addressed a letter stating that they have no objection to the acquisition of land but they wanted only compensation as demanded therein. Subsequently, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award and issued notice under Section 12(2). At all earlier stages, the land owners had participated and did not raise any objection and it is only after the notices under Section 12(2) were issued they filed applications challenging the land acquisition proceedings. It is against this backdrop the Supreme Court observed thus:
12. From the above facts which can not be disputed as they were taken from records, it would be clear that Respondents 1 to 3 (writ petitioners before the High Court) took their chance in the award proceedings and finding that the compensation as claimed by them was not given have moved the High Court If really their intention was to challenge the acquisition as such they could have done so immediately at least after the publication of declaration under Section 6 or immediately after they received notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. This shows that the only object of the writ petitioners was to get the maximum price for the land acquired. No doubt they are entitled to the compensation as provided under the Land Acquisition Act.
23. In Pramod Gupta's case (supra) the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the provisions of the very same Act. In paragraph 110 it has observed that it may not be correct to contend that the provisions of Section 28 and 34 of the Act are so imperative in character that waiver thereof is impermissible in law or would be against public interest. The Supreme Court further ordered that discretion vested in the court, it is trite, may not be exercised where the right to claim interest has been waived expressly by the parties and/or their counsel. Even a mandatory provision of a statute can be waived. In the very same judgment, the Supreme Court had considered the judgment in Krishna Bahadur's case (supra) and quoted the following paragraphs:
9. The principle of waiver although is akin to the principle of estoppel; the difference between the two, however,is that whereas estoppel is not a cause of action; it is a rule of evidence; waiver is contractual and may constitute a cause of action; it is an agreement between the parties and a part fully knowing of its rights has agreed not to assert a right for a consideration.
10. A right can be waived by the party for whose benefit certain requirements or conditions had been provided for by a statute subject to the condition that no public interest is involved therein. Whenever waiver is pleaded it is for the party pleading the same to how that an agreement waiving the right in consideration of some compromise came into being. Statutory right, however, may also be waived by his conduct.
24. In John Moses Fernandes's case (supra) this Court had an occasion to deal with the writ petition of almost similar facts and circumstances except the fact, in that case the petitioners' concession was recorded while disposing of the earlier writ petition that he had no objection for extending time of Section 6 notification afresh. The petitioners therein relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oxford English School's case (supra) to contend that the High Court had no power to extend statutory period prescribed by Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was specifically contended that the statute has prescribed certain period of limitation for the purpose of publication of notification under Section 6 from the time of notification under Section 4 and the statutory right flows from it in favour of the petitioner. Such right cannot be denied to him merely by saying that the petitioners had agreed for extension of period while disposing of earlier writ petition and on this ground the petitioners prayed for quashing of Section 4 notification. This Court distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oxford English School's case on facts and observed that though there is absolute bar for waiver of fundamental right, there is no such bar for waiver of any statutory right, particularly when the person waiving such right claims and enjoys certain benefits from such waiver.
25. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay's case (supra) the Supreme Court was considering the point whether there was waiver or abandonment of rights by the respondents to question validity of the acquisition proceedings. After considering the facts of that case the Supreme Court observed that in order to constitute waiver, there must be voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a right and the essence of waiver is an esttopel and where there is no estoppel there is no waiver. Estoppel and waiver are questions of conduct and must necessarily be determined on the facts of each case. In J.S.Sodhi's case (supra) the Supreme Court observed that the waiver is a question of fact which must be expressly pleaded and clearly proved. No such plea had been raised. In Associated Hotels of India's case (supra) the Supreme court observed that a waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right. There could be no waiver unless the person against whom waiver is claimed had full knowledge of his rights and of facts enabling him to take effectual action for the enforcement of such rights.
26. Waiver is the abandonment of a right in such a way that the other party is entitled to plead the abandonment by way of confession or avoidance if the right is thereafter asserted, and is either express or implied from conduct. Where the waiver is not express it may be implied from conduct which is inconsistent with the continuance of the right. A right can be waived by the party for whose benefit certain requirements or considerations had been provided by a Statute. Though there is absolute bar for waiver of fundamental right, there is no such bar for waiver of any statutory right. In order to constitute waiver, there must be voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a right and the waiver is question of conduct and must necessarily be determined on the facts of each case. There could be no waiver unless the person against whom waiver is claimed had full knowledge of his rights and of facts enabling him to take effectual action for the enforcement of such rights. Thus, in the present case what requires to be seen is as to whether the petitioners stated to have waived their right to challenge notification under Section 6 on the ground of limitation and whether they have enjoyed any benefits from such waiver and/or a waiver was an intentional relinquishment of a known right.
27. The learned Advocate General vehemently submitted that when the earlier writ petition was disposed of the petitioners claim of hearing under Section 5A was recognised and he enjoyed the benefit of hearing in view of the directions given by this Court vide order dated 21.6.2004. He further submitted that the petitioners were knowing their right to challenge the notification under Section 6 on the ground of limitation and, therefore, waiver was intentional relinquishment of the known right.
28. In the present case the conduct of the petitioners clearly demonstrate that they waived their known statutory right to challenge the declaration under Section 6 of the Act on the ground of limitation. Though such plea was raised in the earlier writ petition it was not pressed when the writ petition was disposed of nor any of the parties carried the matter further. Even if it assumed that such plea was not available to the petitioners at that stage, both parties knew the fresh declaration, if made, would be after the expiry of one year's period from the date of Section 4 notification. The petitioners could have prayed for setting aside the notification under Section 4 at that stage only. The petitioners enjoyed the benefit of the said order and got an opportunity of being heard and further they also participated in all the proceedings till the award was passed. It is pertinent to note, that the fresh notification under Section 6 was made on 9.8.2004; gazetted on 10.8.2004 and was published by affixing on 30.9.2004, which petitioners did not challenge till filing of the present writ petition on 21.11.2007. The ground of limitation under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 was introduced by way of amendment in January, 2008. The petitioners participated in the award making process and thereafter filed reference application under Section 18 on 24.12.2007. This conduct of the petitioners, in our opinion, clearly demonstrate that they waived their known statutory right intentionally. Such petitioners cannot be allowed to raise the grounds of challenge in piecemeal to suit their convenience and to delay the acquisition, particularly when there is no dispute that the purpose is public purpose.
29. That apart, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the writ petition challenging notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches if challenge is not made within reasonable time. In M/s.Larsen & Toubro Ltd. case (supra) the Supreme Court has observed that the petitioner cannot sit on the fence and allow the State to complete acquisition proceedings on the basis that notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to attack the notifications on the grounds which were available to him at the time when these were published as otherwise it would be putting premium on dilatory tactics. In the present case the petitioners accepted the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition and faced all the further proceedings without reserving their right to challenge the subsequent Section 6 notification on the ground of limitation. The ground of limitation under Section 6 was raised by the petitioners in January, 2008, that is, after more than three years from the date of the notification under Section 6 which was gazetted on 10.8.2004 and published on 30.9.2004. The Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. and Others. (supra) while dealing with the plea relating to maintainability of the writ petition filed after long passage of time observed that the High Court should not entertain writ petition when there is delayed challenge to the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners in the present case participated in the proceedings under Section 5A, so also the award making process and allowed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass the award. On this ground alone the writ petition deserves to be dismissed apart from the ground of waiver.
30. Keeping the aforementioned judgments in view, it is seen, in the present case when the earlier writ petition was decided the petitioners were conscious of the fact that Section 6 notification after according hearing pursuant to the order of this Court, if issued, would be beyond the period of one year. On this count also, in our opinion, the writ petition fails and deserves to be dismissed. In the circumstances the writ petition fails on two grounds, namely, the ground of waiver, delay and laches. First two questions, as framed in paragraph 8 of this judgment are accordingly answered in the negative.
31. That takes us to consider the challenge to the acquisition on the other ground that the award which had been passed on 22.9.2006 is null and void, inasmuch as the same is passed long after the expiry of two years from the date of notification under Section 6 of the Act. The respondent-State by filing reply affidavit dated 1st December, 2007 have clearly stated that the award under Section 11A is made on 22.9.2006, which is well within two years limitation provided for therein from the last date of publication of notification under Section 6 by affixing at the site on 30.9.2004. The petitioners by filing rejoinder dated 7.1.2008 have disputed the publication of Section 6 notification on 30.9.2004, raising several disputed questions of fact contending that it was manipulated by the State in order to bring the award under Section 11A within time. At the outset, we observe that such contention cannot be entertained and examined in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the statements made on the affidavit by the State Government will have to be accepted. From perusal of the reply-affidavit, it is clear, the statements made therein in respect of final publication of the notification under Section 6 of the Act, are based on the record maintained by office of the Land Acquisition Officer, which cannot be disbelieved, merely because dispute is raised by the petitioners. Section 11A clearly provides that the Collector shall make an award within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period the entire proceeding for the acquisition of land shall lapse. Undoubtedly, the provisions referring to the prescribed period of two years for making an award must be treated as substantive and mandatory. However, looking to the dates, as mentioned by the respondent-State in their affidavit, of the publication of Section 6 notification by affixing at the site and of the award it is clear that the award under Section 11 was made within a period of two years and in view thereof this contention of the petitioners must be rejected.
32. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. The Rule is discharged. No costs.