1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4062/2010 Shri Dattatraya Sansthan Belaj through its President .v. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya Mumbai and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. N.K. Deshpande, Adv. For the petitioner. CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ DATE : 31.08.2010 This is challenge to the acquisition of the petitioner's land in respect of Survey No. 143 of mouza Belaj, Taluka Chandurbazar under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that the acquisition of the land is contrary to the resolution of the Gram Panchayat. However, it is fairly accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the award has been passed on 4.3.2010 and the possession has been taken in the year 2009. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs.Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. And others (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases, 501 the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “It is thus well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and 2` when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loath to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But, it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches.” In the circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court we are not inclined to entertain this petition. Hence, the petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE patle 3`