1 wp5786.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5786 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6948 OF 2011 Vishwambhar s/o Narharrao Patil age 60 years, occupation : Agril r/of Farshi Galli, Osmanabad, Tq. and District Osmababad ... Petitioner versus 01. The State of Maharashtra. 02. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Osmanabad. 3. The Executive Engineer, Special Project Department, Osmanabad. 4. The Collector, Osmanabad ... Respondents ------ Shri P.M. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.K Kadam, A. G. P. for the Respondents. ------- Coram : Smt. Nishita Mhatre and M. T. Joshi, JJ. Date : 5th July, 2011. ORAL ORDER 01. The petitioner has filed the present petition, contending that the respondents should be directed to start acquisition proceedings and pay him compensation for the lands acquired. 2 wp5786.08 02. According to the petitioner, he own the land bearing survey No.357 situated at Osmanabad. It was his ancestral property. The State Highway was constructed through this land in the year 1961. The petitioner has contended that several representations were made by him to the State for acquisition of his land, which have not been heeded by the State. 03. It appears that Regular Civil Suit No. 161 of 1992 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, by the owner of the land bearing survey No. 354/3 for permanent injunction against the State. It appears that no written statement was filed and, therefore, the said suit was decreed, partly. We have been informed that the trial court granted the injunction sought for and further directed the State to start acquisition proceedings in respect of the said survey No. 354/3 at Osmanabad, to the extent of 27 gunthas. 04. The State has filed a first appeal against the said order of the trial court, which is pending in this court. 3 wp5786.08 05. It appears that one Bharat, i.e. the son of the plaintiff in the said suit No. 161 of 1992, has filed civil application No. 6948 of 2011 for intervention in the present petition. 06. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision of the trial court has no bearing on the present case. The petitioner herein seeks a direction against the State to commence the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land owned by him, over which a State highway runs today. 07. There is no dispute that the road which is a State Highway was constructed prior to the year 1961. The petitioner has slept over his rights for more than 50 years. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has tried to contend that because the petitioner received some communication in the year 1984 from the State, he cannot be considered to be guilty of laches. He further submitted that the petitioner suffered a serious attack of paralysis and, therefore, any delay, should be condoned. These submissions 4 wp5786.08 of the learned Advocate are tenuous and unacceptable for condoning laches from 1961. There is no explanation why the Petitioner could not approach this Court while the road was being constructed or immediately thereafter. 08. In State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar, AIR 1995 SC 1991, the Supreme Court has observed that since there was a delay of 20 years on the part of the writ petitioner in invoking the High Court's extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of compensation in respect of the land allegedly taken by the governmental agencies, it would suggest that the land was taken with his consent and that he had acquiesced to such taking over of the land and had waived his right for compensation. 09. In the light of observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the aforesaid judgment, we see no reason to interfere in the present case. Petition rejected. Civil Application stands disposed of. (M. T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) 5 wp5786.08 pnd/wp5276.08