(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.225 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2019 OF 2003 M/s.Sadanand Garage ..Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & Ors.....Respondents Mr. Y.R. Shah for the Petitioners. Mr. K.R. Belosay, AGP. for Respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5. Mr. C.J. Sawant, Senior Counsel with Mr. S.G. Surana for respondent No.2. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 10th November, 2008 DATED: 10th November, 2008 DATED: 10th November, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . By the present Chamber Summons the petitioners have prayed for bringing on record subsequent events including a challenge to the award dated 16th February, 2004which according to the petitioner pursuant to the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was served upon them on 1st March, 2004. It is also pointed out that against the refusal of interim relief by this Court the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal and that appeal was disposed of by order dated 7th April, 2008. It is also pointed out that the challenge in the petition was to the declaration under Section 6 of the Land (-2-) Acquisition Act and what the petitioner, therefore, are seeking to bring on record are only the subsequent events. 2. On the other hand on behalf of the respondent No.2 learned Counsel submits that the Chamber Summons for amendment is belated or barred by limitation as the petitioner ought to have challenged the passing of the Award within 3 years and further it is pointed out that the petitioners have already applied under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.Raheja Constructions Ltd. & Anr. vs. K.Raheja Constructions Ltd. & Anr. vs. K.Raheja Constructions Ltd. & Anr. vs. Alliance Ministries & Ors., 1995 Supp. (3) Alliance Ministries & Ors., 1995 Supp. (3) Alliance Ministries & Ors., 1995 Supp. (3) S.C.C.17 S.C.C.17 S.C.C.17.That was a case where the suit was sought to be amended several years after filing of the suit, by seeking a prayer for grant of specific performance. The learned Supreme Court after considering the facts there was pleased to hold that the application for amendment was barred by limitation. 3. In the instant case the petitioners have approached this Court challenging declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. If the challenge by the petitioner to the said declaration succeeds then the award made subsequently also will (-3-) have to be set aside. The proceedings before the Court are not in the nature of suit, nor is there a limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act for challenge to an Award under Land Acquisition Act. Apart from that we may note that the matter was pending in the Supreme Court against the interim order. The S.L.P. was disposed of on 7th April, 2008. The award itself was notified on 1st March, 2004. Considering that the challenge is to the declaration under Section and the challenge to the award is consequential, in our opinion, the judgment in K.Raheja Constructions Ltd. (supra) would not apply to the facts of this case. . The principal issue to be answered in this petition is whether the public purpose for which the land was acquired can be sustained. In our opinion as the amendment is only for bringing the subsequent events on record the Chamber Summons will have to be allowed. . Chamber Summons accordingly allowed. Amendment to be carried out in the course of the week. Respondents to file their reply, if any, within two weeks. Rejoinder if any to be filed within two weeks thereafter. . Stand over for four weeks. (-4-) (J.P. DEVADHAR (J.P. DEVADHAR (J.P. DEVADHAR J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)