1 WP 977.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 977 OF 2011 Sopan S/o Manaji Pawar .... PETITIONER VERSUS Union of India & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.N.Kakade,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.V.Soman, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 09/02/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner vide the present Writ Petition seeks writ of mandamus for quashing the communication issued by the respondents, thereby rejecting the plea of the petitioner for employment to the petitioner’s grand-son from land loser’s quota. 3. The land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1989. It is averred by the petitioner that in addition to the compensation amount, the respondents had assured that one person from the family of the person whose land is acquired, will be given employment. According to the 2 WP 977.2011 petitioner, he had neither sought employment for himself nor for his son. In view of the assurance of the respondents, grand-son of the petitioner deserves to be appointed from the land loser’s quota. 4. Mr. A.N.Kakade, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents can not be allowed to resile from the assurance given by them. The assurance was given that one member from the family will be accommodated in employment. When the petitioner had not claimed any employment for himself or his son, in such circumstances, was entitled to claim appointment for his grand-son from the land loser’s quota. The respondents being instrumentality of the State, can not be allowed to turn around and now contend otherwise. 5. Mr. D.V. Soman, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the employment was assured to be given to the petitioner himself or his wife/son/daughter. The same can not be extended to the grand-son. The petitioner has been paid the compensation amount, even had sought enhancement by filing a Reference. The learned counsel further contends that even otherwise after 21 years, the petitioner can not claim any right and the petition deserves to be dismissed on latches. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai V/s M. Meiyappan & 3 WP 977.2011 Ors. reported in 2010 AIR SCW – 7130. 6. The fact that the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1989, is not disputed. The petitioner has been paid the compensation amount for the same. Even the petitioner has filed Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The scheme, on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming right to get his grand-son appointed, is not placed on record. In absence of the same, the petitioner can not claim any right to get his grand-son appointed under the land loser’s quota. To include grand-son as an eligible person within the meaning of the family, would be extending the definition of the family too far. Unless there is any scheme, which extends the facility even to the grand-son of a person whose land is acquired, the petitioner can not claim any right to get his grand-son appointed. More over, the petitioner has moved after 21 years. The same can not be said to be a reasonable time. The petitioner can not claim right in perpetuity. In the Judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Tamil Nadu Housing Board V/s M. Meiyappan & Ors. referred supra, the Apex Court had held that the High Court should not have entertained the Writ Petition when the petitioner has approached 16 years after the acquisition proceedings. In the present case, the petitioner has approached after 21 years. Even on the ground of latches, the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief. 4 WP 977.2011 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] knp/WP 977.2011