: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6782 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6782 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6782 OF 2008 Shri Jagannath Narhari Talekar ...Petitioner. V/s. District Collector, Satara & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.D.M.Gupte , adv. for the Petitioner. Mr.Vijay Patil , adv. for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 5. CORAM: Bilal Nazki CORAM: Bilal Nazki CORAM: Bilal Nazki & J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ. DATE : 3rd December, 2008. DATE : 3rd December, 2008. DATE : 3rd December, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Award dated 6-6-2008 has been challenged in this petition on the ground that the procedure laid down under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring land was not complied. In counter affidavit filed by the respondent in paragraph 5, dates have given when notices were issued under Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Date of passing the award has also been mentioned. One of the grounds was that the award was not passed within a period of two years from the date of Notification under Section 6 was published. This is also disputed. It is submitted that the notice under Section 6 was displayed on Chawdi on 29-9-2006 and the award was passed on 31st May, 2008. The contention that the award was passed on 6-6-2008 : 2 : as such, is denied. We understand from the counter that the petitioners have filed a suit in the year 2005, which is pending in the Civil Court in which the petitioners sought a declaration that the canal should not be dug up in the lands belonging to the petitioners. From the counter affidavit, it is also understood that this is a prestigious irrigation project. On completion, it will irrigate 43050 hectares of land across many Talukas. The work of digging of canal is also started in the lands of the petitioners according to the counter affidavit and the petitioners counsel conceded that they have also moved an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. In this view of the matter, we do not feel that there is any ground to interfere in the petition. The petition is dismissed. (Bilal Nazki, J.) (Bilal Nazki, J.) (Bilal Nazki, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.)