1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4260 OF 2008 Nathusaheb B. Mane ...Petitioner v/s State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr U.P. Warunjikar for Petitioner. Mr S.N. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND K.K. TATED JJ. DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER 2009. 2 P.C. :- 1] The petitioner, by this petition, is challenging the land acquisition award 30th November 2001 on the ground that the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.19, Satara who made the award had no authority in law to make the award. The State Government, on the other hand, relies on the letter dated 18th December 1998 by which, according to the State Government, the Collector, Satara delegated his powers under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 of making award to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that in terms of provisions of section 3EEE of the said Act, a person can be appointed as Land Acquisition Officer by the State Government by issuing a Notification in the Official Gazette. In the submission of the learned counsel, the Special Land Acquisition Officer who has made the award has not been so appointed. In any case, the Government has not placed any Notification published in the Official Gazette by which he was 3 appointed. The learned counsel further submits that notwithstanding the provisions of section 51A of the said Act, the Special land Acquisition Officer who made the award, has no authority in law to make the award. 2] The State Government, on the other hand, relies on the provisions of section 52A of the said Act to claim that the Collector has power to delegate his powers to Land Acquisition Officer or an Officer of the rank of Tahasildar and such delegation has been brought about by letter or order dated 18th December 1998. Reliance is also placed on behalf of the State Government on Notification issued under section 6 of the said Act, published in the Official Gazette dated 21st August 1999 where the Special Land Acquisition Officer was authorised to take further steps in the matter of acquisition of petitioner s land. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also pointed out the award dated 30th November 2001. The possession of the land was taken on 19th September 2002 and the land has also 4 been allotted to the person who was entitled to the allotment. The learned AGP states that the first representation was made in the year 2004 to the Divisional Commissioner who has no power to delete land from acquisition once possession of the land is taken. According to the learned AGP, the petitioner is guilty of latches and therefore, this ground is enough to dismiss the petition. 3] Now, perusal of provisions of section 3EEE of the said Act shows that the State Government has power to appoint an Officer by a Notification in the Official Gazette as land Acquisition Officer. The provisions of section 52A which is introduced in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by the State Amendment shows that the Collector has been empowered by that provision to delegate any of his powers and functions under the Act to any Officer who is not below the rank of Tahasildar. By letter dated 18th December 1998, power of the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in relation to the project for which the land of the petitioner was acquired, have 5 been delegated to the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.4, Satara. Though it is true that the Government Notification issued under section 3EEE of the said Act appointing Special Land Acquisition Officer No.4, Satara has not been placed on record. The letter dated 18th December 1998 shows that there was already an Officer appointed by the Government as Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Collector, in exercise of his powers under section 52A of the said Act delegated his powers to that Officer. Therefore, in our opinion, it is clear that the powers of the Collector were delegated to the Special land Acquisition Officer and there does not appear to be any infirmity in the Special Land Acquisition Officer in making the award. In any case, in our opinion, even assuming that there is some infirmity in the powers of the Special Land Acquisition Officer in making the award, this Court will not be justified in entertaining this petition of the petitioner who is guilty of latches. The award was made in 2001, the petitioner lost possession in 2002, for two years he did nothing. 6 In 2004, he made a representation to the Divisional Commissioner who has no power to delete the land or to set aside the award. In any case, land, possession of which has been taken, cannot be released from acquisition by any Officer. The petitioner approach this Court in the year 2007. The land has already been allotted to third party. In our opinion, taking overall view of the matter, entertaining this petition in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under the Constitution of India will not be appropriate in exercise of that jurisdiction. Petition is rejected. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE K.K. TATED )