{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1490 OF 2009 Shivaji Vithal Labade PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.K.S.Bhore, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatage, AGP for respondents No.1 to 4 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 11th August 2009 PER COURT: 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner, vide prayer clause (B), prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 4 to recover the possession of the land belonging to the petitioner at Gut No.9 admeasuring 2 hectare 2 gunthas at village Madki, Tq- Newasa, Dist-Ahmednagar, from respondents No.5 and 6 and to hand over possession of the said land to the petitioner forthwith. 2. It appears that section 4 notification came to be {2} published in 1974 in respect of acquisition of land at Gut No.9 admeasuring 2 hectare 2 gunthas. Despite objections u/s 5 A of the Land Acquisition Act, declaration u/s 6 of the Act came to be issued and ultimately an award dated 18.12.1980 came to be passed. The award includes the land of the petitioner situated at Gut No.9 admeasuring 2 hectare 2 gunthas. The award further indicates that compensation of Rs.9,292/- was declared to be entitled to be paid to the owner of the land in respect of the land at Gut No.9 admeasuring 2 hectare 2 gunthas. 3. It appears that application had been moved on behalf of the original owners of the land, after passing of the award, for deletion of the land from acquisition. The affidavit in reply, filed on behalf of respondents, indicates that the aforesaid application came to be rejected some time in the year 1996. The aforesaid communication is placed on record at Exhibit-R-1, which is dated 29.09.1996. It appears that some notice had been issued to respondents No.5 and 6, who were said to be in possession of the said land as allottees of the said land, in respect of handing over of the possession of the said land to the respondents in turn to hand over the possession to the original owners. A civil suit had been filed by respondents No.5 and 6 before the civil judge challenging issuance of the said notice. The said civil suit came to be dismissed. The petitioner thereafter has filed the present petition. 4. Mr.Bhore, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged {3} before us that the material on record clearly indicates that the land of the petitioner had been deleted from the acquisition and therefore, a notice had been issued to the respondents No.5 and 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the written statement filed in the said civil suit, on behalf of the respondents, also clearly indicates that the land had been deleted. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the documents submitted by the respondents pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, are fabricated documents on which no reliance ought to be placed. Learned AGP has urged before us that the document at Exhibit-R-1, which is issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, clearly indicates that the application submitted on behalf of the owner of the land for deletion of the land, had been rejected. In the light of that it is stated that since the land is included in the award and in absence of any material to show that the land had been deleted, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs prayed in this petition. 5. The original land owners have certainly slept over their rights for more than 19 years. After a period of 19 years this petition has been filed by the petitioner on the specious plea that the land stood deleted. The document at Exhibit-R-1 clearly indicates that the plea of the owner of the land for deletion of the land came to be rejected. This is a disputed question and, therefore, cannot be decided in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Prima facie, we are {4} satisfied, on the basis of Exhibit-R-1, that the land has not been deleted from the acquisition. The award passed on 18.12.1980 indicates that compensation had been held as payable to the original owners of the land. The petition not only suffers from latches, but also raises several disputed questions, which cannot be gone into. In the light of that, therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp1490-09