1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 11 OF 2011 (Shankar Shriram Tambulkar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. AUGUST 22, 2011. Heard Shri Sohoni, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 to 4 & 6 and Shri Talmale, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. The contention that Section 6 notification is beyond the period of one year from the date of publication of Section 4 Notification is misconceived. Last such notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is published at village - Chaudi of Mouza Bela on 05.03.2009 and first of such notification under Section 6 is made on 21.02.2009. The publication of notification for village - Chaudi of Mouza Bela is dated 05.03.2009. Hence, notification is within time. Second contention is, the petitioners were having their lands at Mouza – Pindkepar as the same were acquired, they have been rehabilitated at Mouza 2 – Bela. Their lands at Mouza – Bela are being acquired for rehabilitation for project affected persons. We find that the petitioners had not raised any such objection in response to Section 4 notification. The last contention is land survey No. 102 proposed to be acquired is Jhudpi Jangal and that being forest land, cannot be used for any purpose without previous permission of Central Government/ Competent Authority. It is further stated that the land Gat No. 100 belonging to the petitioners cannot be put to any use until and unless Land Survey No. 102 is made available for construction of approach road. Reliance is being placed upon communication dated 08.07.2011 sent by the Executive Engineer to Town Planner, Bhandara, seeking clarification as to whether the lay out prepared in Gat No. 100 of petitioners can be shifted to any other land. Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader as also Shri Talmale, learned counsel have pointed out that award under Section 11 is already declared on 17.11.2010. In this situation, we find that even this objection was not raised by the petitioners within time and it did not form part of Section 5A inquiry. Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act can be conveniently used by the respondents if they find any 3 change in lay out necessary. Hence, without prejudice to any other remedy which is available to the petitioners, as we do not do find any merit in it, writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.