pvr １ wplp4013-3879-2264-879 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4013 OF 2010 1.Narayan Keshav Joshi & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO.3879 OF 2010 Koyana Dam Vikas Mandal. ...Petitioner vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO.2264 OF 2010 1.Raghunath Shripath Bhosale & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO.859 OF 2011 1.Ramakant Krishna Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents --- pvr ２ wplp4013-3879-2264-879 Mrs.S.S.Gokhale, for Petitioners Mr.N.P.Deshpande, AGP for Respondents-State. Mr.G.S.Hegde, for Intervener. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 20th December,2011. P.C.:- 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the petitions finally by consent of the parties. For the purpose of disposal of these petitions the following can be taken as admitted facts:- That on 18.1.2010 a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued applying the urgency clause dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. This notification is challenged in the present petitions. The petitioners contention was that considering the purpose for which the land is to be acquired, urgency clause should not have been invoked. A notification under Section 4 pvr ３ wplp4013-3879-2264-879 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Official Gazette on 19.1.2010. It is common ground that the last date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is 4.2.2010 when it was published at Chawadi of the village. The petitions were filed in this Court challenging Section 4 Notification. In that notification admittedly on 29.3.2010 the Court made an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo till the next date. The matter was adjourned from time to time. It was before the Court on 9.8.2010. ON that date the Court directed that the order of status quo will continue till the next date i.e. 24.8.2010. The order was Status quo to continue till then. . It is common ground that the matter did not appear on board on 24.8.2010. Thereafter, it appeared on the board, but the Court did not continue the operation of the interim order. The authorities under the Land Acquisition Act have admittedly not issued notification under Section pvr ４ wplp4013-3879-2264-879 6 of the Land Acquisition Act till today. Excluding the period during which the interim order made by the Court was operating, period of more than one year has elapsed between the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act and today, still notification under Section 6 of the Act has not been issued. Therefore, now in view of the provisions of sub- section (1) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as a period of more than one year has been elapsed, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act cannot be made. The law is clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case Ashok Kumar & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2007)3 Supreme Court Cases 470 . Therefore, there is no question now of considering the question  whether the authorities were justified in invoking the urgency clause while issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act. On behalf of the intervener a submission was made that when the Court continued the status pvr ５ wplp4013-3879-2264-879 quo order till next date on 9.8.2010, the interim order will continue to operate though the Court did not make any order continuing that interim order. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment of learned Single Judge in the case Govinda Bhagoji Kamable & Ors. Vs. Sadu Bapu Kamable & Ors., 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 651. Perusal of that judgment shows that the learned Single Judge in that case was not considering the meaning of the term interim order to continue till then . The Court was considering the meaning of the term interim order in the meanwhile . The Supreme Court on the other hand, it appears that, has considered the controversy in the judgment in the case Ashok Kumar & Ors. referred to above. In our opinion, what is observed by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 is relevant, it reads as under:- 11. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the pvr ６ wplp4013-3879-2264-879 order of ad interim injunction granted by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panipat, was operative till 9.9.1998 or 19.8.2000. We have noticed hereinbefore the nature of the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge. Although in its order dated 30.8.1997, the learned Civil Judge, used the term in the meantime , which was repeated in its order dated 24.9.1997, but in the subsequent orders beginning from 19.11.1997, the expression used was till then . 12. The term of the order of the learned Judge, in our opinion, does not leave any manner of doubt whatsoever that the interim order was only extended from time to time. The interim order having been extended till a particular date, the contention raised by the respondents herein that they were under a bona fide belief that the injunction order would pvr ７ wplp4013-3879-2264-879 continue till it was vacated cannot be accepted. Thus, it is clear that when a Court directs that interim order to continue till a particular date and if the Court on that date does not continue the interim order, the interim order will cease to operate. The observations of the Supreme Court quoted above have been made with reference to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, in our opinion, as now no notification under Section 6 of the Act can be issued pursuant to Section 4 Notification which is challenged in the petition, no useful purpose will be served by considering the validity or otherwise of Section 4 Notification. The petitions are, therefore, disposed of. It is clarified that this order will not come in the way of the State Government issuing fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act. pvr ８ wplp4013-3879-2264-879 2. In the present petitions, the petitioners have also challenged notification issued under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act. As we have held that Section 4 Notification issued for the project has become ineffective, it is not necessary for us to examine the challenge to the notification issued under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act. However, in case the authorities decide to issue a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners shall be at liberty to challenge, while challenging the fresh notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, the notification issued under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act,1999. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)