1 wp8769.11.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8769 OF 2011 Shri Namdeo Gayaji Tanpure & Ors. ....Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Anil Ahuja for the Petitioners. Mr. Anilkumar Patil for Respondent No. 4. CORAM :- D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :- 22 NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. :- By this Petition the only communication challenged by the Petitioners is communication dated 2 April 2011. That communication was sent pursuant to the objection raised by the Petitioners. Though the communication is dated 2 April 2011, the Petition is filed in the month of September 2011. It is apparent from copy of the award made under Section 11 which is annexed to the Petition that after the letter dated 2 April 2011 was sent to the 2 wp8769.11.sxw ssm Petitioners, a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the land was issued on 11 April 2011. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated for making of award and award has been made on 24 June 2011. In this Petition, there is no challenge to the notification issued under Section 6. Rejection of the objection raised by the Petitioners pursuant to Section 4 notice merged in the notification issued under Section 6. Without challenging the notification issued under Section 6, the Petitioners cannot be granted any relief. In any case, the law settled by a series of the Judgments of the Supreme Court is that a Petition challenging acquisition has to be filed before the High Court before award under Section 11 is made. A Petition filed after award is made challenging acquisition cannot be entertained. In this Petition, even acquisition is not challenged inasmuch as there is no challenge to Section 6 notification. It is thus clear that the Petition is completely and totally misconceived. 2 The Petition is accordingly rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)