1 SA No.277/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.277 of 2010 Shri Sudesh S. Deshmukh ... Appellant versus The State of Maharashtra through the Collector District Solapur ... Respondent ... Mr.Ashok B. Tajane for the appellant CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 2nd September 2011 P.C. 1. Second Appeal arises out of the suit filed by the appellant (original plaintiff) against State of Maharashtra for a mandatory injunction directing the state to commence proceedings for acquisition of the suit land of which he claims to be the owner by purchase. 2. The suit appears to be based on a notice dated 11 January 1982 issued by the Tahsildar wherein the plaintiff/his predecessor in title were informed that the suit land would be acquired for public purpose. The grievance of the appellant was that despite the notice, the suit land has not been acquired and therefore the suit for 2 SA No.277/10 mandatory injunction has been filed. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. It held that the suit filed on 7 October 2002, after 20 years of the notice of the proposed acquisition was barred by limitation. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal. 3. In my view, the entire suit was misconceived. Relevant pleadings on which the suit is based are found in paragraph no.10 of the plaint. The relevant portion is quoted below: “As stated above, the Tahsildar, North Solapur, by notice dated 11.1.1982 had informed that the suit land would be acquired for public purpose. The plaintiff relying on the said promise of Tahasildar did not take steps immediately on the assumption that the defendant would not behave like an ordinary litigant”. In my view, the notice issued by the Tahsildar does not create any right in favour of the plaintiff for getting his land acquired. Even after a notification under section 4 is issued and even after acquisition proceedings are commenced, the Government is entitled to withdraw from the acquisition at any stage before possession of the property is taken (see section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act). As such no mandamus could be issued for a direction to the State Government to acquire the land. Appeal is without merit and is dismissed summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)