1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3714 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3714 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3714 OF 2008 Murlidhar G.Kate & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.G.s.Godbole i/b. Mr.S.M.Sabrad for the Petitioners. Mr.V.P.Malvankar, AGP. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . Land was acquired in L.A.Q.Case No.1 of 1989 vide notification dated 19th December, 1989. The notification was stayed almost 20 years before. Final award was passed on 20th June, 1994. The land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of Industrial Development Corporation. The land had to be taken into possession of the Respondent on 28th August, 1996. But the Government itself granted a stay and land could not 2 be taken possession of further for the last 12 years although the Award has been passed in the year 1994. The stay has been vacated. After the vacation of the stay, the Respondents directed the Petitioner to handover the possession by 18th June, 2008. This order is now again challenged before this Court. The Petitioner has been granted a stay for 14 years after the Award was passed and for 20 years after the first notification was issued . Now when the stay is vacated, he has approached this Court for seeking quashing of the order on the ground that he has a right to be heard before his representation is decided in terms of section 32 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. He relied on proviso to sub section 4 of section 32. 2. In our view, the proviso 4 of section 32 does not give any right to the Petitioner to move a representation. This proviso merely enables the State Government to denotify land before taking actual possession of such land. This power is exclusively of the State Government and the Petitioner has no right to stall taking over the possession on the ground that the denotification of the land should be considered in terms of the proviso. Since the Government itself has 3 issued a notice to the Petitioner to hand over the land that would suggest that the Government is not inclined to exercise the proviso for denotification of the land. 3. The Petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)