1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 711 OF 2009 Asaram Suryabhan Aaher ...Appellant VERSUS Special Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad,Ahmadnagar Road Ahmadnagar and others ...Respondents ------------------------------------------ Mr. D.G.Nagode, Advocate for appellant. Mr. A.S.Zarekar, Advocate for respondent. ----------------------------------------- (CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J ) DATE : 6th October,2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal by the appellant/original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the Courts below. 3. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the Land Acquisition officer, State Government and the District Rehabilitation Officer, Ahmadnagar, seeking injunction order, restraining them from acquiring the disputed property. The plaintiff further prays for recovery of the 2 possession of the acquired property. 4. The defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement. According to the defendants, the property is acquired in pursuance of the Award passed in 1971. The defendants have also raised contention about the maintainability of the suit and bar of limitation. 5. The trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable, so also, the claim is beyond prescribed period of limitation, and dismissed the suit. 6. The Judgment and decree of the Trial Court has been confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2003, which was after hearing the parties by the District Judge Ahmadnagar, on 01.10.2004. I have perused the judgment of the Courts below. The acquisition proceeding is concluded in the year 1978. After passing of Award and after accrual of cause of action period of 15 years has lapsed. In view of Article 64 of the Limitation Act, the prescribed period of limitation is of 12 years, which is to be reckoned from the date of dispossession. The claim raised by the plaintiff is beyond expiry period of 12 years. As such, it is obviously barred by time. Apart from this aspect, 3 the relief claimed by the plaintiff can not be granted by the Civil Court. The remedy available to the plaintiff lies elsewhere. The Courts below adopted the proper approach in the matter. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ( R.M.BORDE, J. ) MTK/SA.711.09 4