* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 357 OF 2006 Shri.Gopinath Dhondu Mhatre .......Appellant/ (Orig.Plaintiff) vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. ....Respondents (Orig.Defendants) ----------------- Mr.A.A.Garge, Advocate forAppellant. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, AGP for respondents. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J Date : 2 nd July, 2009 PC :- 1. This Second Appeal is preferred to challenge the concurrent findings of both the courts below dismissing the suit filed by the appellant who is the original plaintiff for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the suit property have lapsed and for handing over possession to the appellant. * 2 * 2. One Manikji Horamji was the owner of the suit land. Because the land was not cultivated continuously for two years, respondent no.1-Government took over its possession pursuant to Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 . Thereafter, it had given the suit land for management to the appellant. It appears that in the year 1962, possession of the land was taken from the appellant under acquisition proceedings for handing over the land alongwith other lands for the purpose of industrial development. In the year 1997, appellant filed the suit herein i.e. Regular Civil Suit No.643 of 1997 against the State of Maharashtra, Special Land Acquisition Officer, and the acquiring bodies i.e. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd for a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed and for possession of the suit properties. The appellant had contended before the trial court that the State of Maharashtra, Special Land Acquisition Officer had obtained possession of his land without following due process of law and passed Award under the acquisition proceedings and that the land has not been utilised by these respondents for bonafide purpose. On both these counts, the trial court held against the appellant. It also denied the relief of declaration and injunction to the appellant on the ground that on 6th October, 1965 the appellant * 3 * was not in possession of the suit land in the capacity of a tenant or Kul. This order has been upheld by the appellate court. Thus on the questions of facts, there is concurrent finding of both the courts below. 2. Mr.Garge, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that since respondent no.1 has not completed the acquisition proceedings for the last more than 30 years, the appellant is entitled for return of possession of the suit land. He points out that under the Land Acquisition Code, the acquiring body is required to complete the process of acquisition during the period of three years from the date of the notice. 3. Both the courts below dismissed the suit and the appeal on the ground that the appellant has no right over the suit property, being neither the tenant nor the Kul. In that circumstance, the appellant will not be entitled to demand possession of the suit property. Once the State of Maharashtra assumed possession of the property under Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 the land vests in the Government. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J * 4 *