-: 1 :- wp-6562/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6562 OF 2010 Kundlika N. Masake. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. A. M. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr. V. S. Gokhale, AGP. Coram : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & RANIT MORE, JJ. Date : October 1, 2010. P. C. [Per Ranjit More, J.] : 1. The writ petition is filed for following reliefs : “a] to hold and declare that the suit lands are not liable for acquisition for Chandoli/Warana Project: b] alternatively, to direct the respondents to delete the suit lands from acquisition for Chandoli/Warana Project as per Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act; c] alternatively, to direct the respondents to hear and decide the representation of the petitioner as per section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in a time bound manner:’ 2. The petitioner is an agriculturalist, who hails from village Ashta, new village Karandwadi, taluka Walwa, district Sangli. On the date of issuance of notification under section 11 of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Affected Persons Act, 1976 (for short “the said srp -: 2 :- wp-6562/10 Act”), i.e., on 13/5/1977, the petitioner’s land holding was 12 acres and therefore in accordance with the slab prescribed, the respondent – authority acquired 81­Ares land from Gat No. 1435/1(new Gat No. 179/1/1) which is now re­numbered as Gat No. 62/1/1. 3. The main contention of the petitioner seems to be that the length of Warana canal has reduced to 70kms. from 100 kms. and therefore petitioner’s land is not liable for acquisition, as it does not fall within the benefited zone of Chandoli/Warana Project. The petitioner also contends that he sold 1­hectare and 1­Are land to Rukmini Kolkar on 17/3/1978 and hence his holding was not 12­ acres, as held by the respondents. 4. Mr. V. S. Gokhale, learned AGP submitted that the petitioner's land is acquired by passing award under section 11 on 24/2/1989. The petitioner thereafter filed writ petition in this Court and SLP in the Supreme Court challenging the acquisition, however, same were dismissed. The petitioner had earlier filed an application under section 48 for deletion of his land from acquisition, however, same was also dismissed. He lastly submitted that the petition is devoid of substance and same be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the petition and affidavit­in­reply and various -: 3 :- wp-6562/10 documents placed on record, we find no merit in the petition. The perusal of the record discloses that Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 19/12/1983 and thereafter on 11/12/1986 declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. The award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was passed on 24/2/1989 after receipt of petitioner’s reply to the notice under section 9(3) & (4). Notice under section 12(2) was given to the petitioner on 13/6/1989. The petitioner thereafter challenged this notice by filing Writ Petition No. 2939 of 1989 in this Court, however, same was dismissed on 15/1/1996. The petitioner thereafter preferred SLP in the Supreme Court being SLP (Civil) No. 763 of 1997 and same was also dismissed on 7/7/1997. The petitioner thereafter filed RCS No. 371 of 1997 challenging the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner had also filed revision under section 48(1) the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, being Revision Application no. 739 of 2000 before the Divisional Commissioner, which was rejected on 4/10/2006. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal against this order before the Minister. However, since no orders were passed on this appeal, the petitioner preferred another writ petition being Writ Petition No.307 of 2001 requesting this Court to grant interim relief during the pendency of -: 4 :- wp-6562/10 appeal before the Minister. The writ petition, however, came to be withdrawn. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has lost the case in every Court. 6. The fact that the petitioner sold 1­hectare and 1­Are land to Rukmini Kolkar on 17/3/1978 does not affect the slab applied to the petitioner, inasmuch as the said land is sold subsequent to the notification under section 11 of the said Act. The petitioner has relied upon the information obtained by him under the Right to Information Act in support of his contention that the length of Warana Project – Left canal is reduced to 70 kms., from 100 kms, and as such his land does not fall within the benefit zone of Warana project, and therefore same cannot be subject matter of acquisition. However, it is pertinent to note that the length of the said canal was reduced in the year 1990, the petitioner thereafter filed two writ petitions in this Court and one SLP in the Supreme Court and this point was not taken in any of these proceedings. Be that as it may, the letter of Maharashtra Krishna Khore Vikas Corporation, dated 6th May 1998 discloses that though the length of canal is reduced to 70 kms., the area between 70 and 100 kms, will still remain in benefited zone inasmuch as the area between 70 to 100 kms will get irrigated by the water of the said project and the capacity of the said project is also -: 5 :- wp-6562/10 fixed accordingly, and therefore it will be binding on the persons coming in this benefited zone to give land for rehabilitation of project affected persons. 7. The petitioner disputed the fact that the respondent – Authorities have taken possession of the acquired land. However, Mutation Entry No.434 shows that possession of the acquired land is already obtained from the petitioner and Mutation Entry No. 2335 further shows that possession of this land is handed over to Bandu Patil, the projected affect person. In the circumstances, petitioner’s application under section 48(1) is not maintainable. 8. Taking overall view of the matter, we find that the writ petition is without any substance and same is therefore dismissed. (Smt. Ranjana Desai,J.) (Ranit More, J.)