1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.965 of 2000 Jaisinhrao Dattatrao Patil ... Petitioner versus Spl.Land Acquisition Officer No.12, Kolhapur and ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. A.Y.Sakhare, Sr. Counsel and Mr.Siddharth Karpe i/b YKS Legal for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.S.M.Sabrad for respondent no.4. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 21st June 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition, petitioner prays for a mandamus to strike down the award dated 1st March 1997 as also the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of acquisition in respect of land bearing Survey No.43 admeasuring 3 Hectares 18 Ares. 2. The Writ Petition deserves to be rejected on several grounds. Firstly, Writ Petition has been filed on 8th February 2000 challenging the award dated 1st March 1997. Petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the 2 ground of delay and latches. The petitioner seeks to explain the delay by stating that the petitioner was not aware of the acquisition proceedings. The award discloses that a notice u/s.4 was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 2nd June 1994. The notice was also published in two local newspapers on 26th May 1994 and 31st May 1994. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner was not aware of the acquisition proceedings. 2. According to the petitioner, he purchased the suit land under a sale deed dated 5th may 1982. The original owner had filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit no.227 of 1987 challenging the sale deed. In appeal, the suit of the original owner was dismissed and the petitioner was held to be the owner. As such, counsel submits, notice u/s.4 ought to have been issued to the petitioner and as no notice u/s.4 was issued to the petitioner, the acquisition was bad in law. The land was acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation of the project affected persons. Notification under the Rehabilitation Act was issued on 27th January 1981 i.e. prior to the purchase of the land by petitioner. Under the Rehabilitation Act, no transfer of land is permitted after the notification. Since the petitioner had purchased the land after the issuance of notification, the transfer was invalid and the petitioner was not entitled to a separate notice. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)