1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9017 OF 2009 Mr.Rajesh Khairatilal Bajaj. ...Petitioner vs. 1.The Pune Municipal Corpn. & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.Uday Warunjikar, for Petitioner. Mr.S.M.Gorwardkar, for Respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.S.N.Patil, AGP for Respondent no.4. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 27th January,2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard. The petitioner by this petition claims the following reliefs:- A) Be pleased to call for record and proceedings from Respondent No.1 and 2 of the Resolution No.880 dtd.11/08/1989 and the letter dtd.29/06/1989 and letter received on 01/10/2009 and after going 2 through the records be pleased to issue a Writ of Cerciarary writ in the nature of Cerciarary or any other writ order or direction quashing & setting aside the resolution No.880 dated 11/08/89 & be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to restore possession of the petitioner in respect of the property mentioned in the petition. As well as be pleased to quash and set aside the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 4th May,1983 as well as notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 16th March,1984 and the award dated 31st March,1985 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Pune for the reasons mentioned in the memo of the Petition. B) Be pleased to direct the State Govt. to take necessary actions against the delinquent officers for committing such an illegal act by canceling the public parking purpose reservation & causing loss to the Government. B1) During pendency of the above referred Petition, be pleased to restrain 3 respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 to not to create further third party interest in respect of the structure which is a subject matter of the above referred Petition. Perusal of the prayer clauses shows that the petitioner challenges the acquisition of the land. The petitioner is also seeking restoration of possession of the property to the petitioner. He is also seeking direction for taking action against the officers of the Corporation who have been instrumental in dropping the reservation. The facts which are stated in the petition are that the proceedings were initiated for acquisition of the property wherein one Smt.Shantabai was a tenant. The property is bearing CTS no.1130, Final Plot no.506, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. A portion of that plot was in possession of Smt.Shantabai as a tenant. That land was reserved in development plan for parking. Proceedings were initiated for acquisition of the land. Ultimately, an Award was made under the Land Acquisition Act on 31.3.1985. In the Award, Smt.Shantabai was referred to as a tenant. She had submitted a claim before Land Acquisition Officer 4 wherein she claimed that she was running a Hotel. The claim of Smt.Shantabai was dated 7.9.1984. She also demanded alternate accommodation for her. Perusal of the Award shows that the claim of Smt.Shantabai for compensation was rejected as it is observed in the Award that during site inspection it was found that the Hotel of Smt.Shantabai was closed down. According to the Award, she was not at all entitled to claim compensation of loss of business as she was not carrying out any business and therefore, she has not given any compensation. According to the petitioner, after the Award was made on 31.3.1985, possession of the entire land was taken in October,1987. According to the petitioner, thereafter a Resolution was passed in the year 1989 by the Standing Committee of the Corporation for deletion of reservation of the land for parking and also for deletion of the land from acquisition, and also for entering into an agreement with the owner. It appears that the Corporation has also by letter dated 11.8.1989 recommended deletion of the land from acquisition and has entered into an agreement with the owner. According to the learned 5 Counsel appearing for the petitioner, construction was thereafter started by the owner on the land sometime after 1989, the petitioner made application under Right to Information Act in the year 2009 and he received information on 17.9.2009 and therefore, this petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner claims his locus to file the present petition on the basis of agreement of assignment, that agreement of assignment is dated 8.6.1987. According to that agreement, Smt.Shantabai assigned her rights in the hotel business being run on the suit plot in favour of the petitioner. So far as this assignment is concerned, what is interesting to be noted is that the land acquisition Award was made on 31.3.1985 and in the Award there is a clear observation made and a finding recorded that when the site was inspected before making the Award, the land acquisition Officer found that there is no business being run on the plot and the business has been closed down. In the year 1985 when the Award was made, Smt.Shantabai was in charge, but she never challenged 6 the Award, she never made any reference to any Court, therefore, whatever is said about the status of the business of Smt.Shantabai has become final between the Government and said Smt.Shantabai. Perusal of the Agreement of Assignment shows that what has been assigned to the petitioner is business. In the face of the finding recorded in the Award that no Hotel business is being run on the property, we find that the petitioner does not have any locus to file this petition. If the petitioner claims that Smt.Shantabai assigned tenancy rights in his favour then he has to assert and prove that the landlord has given consent in writing to the tenant to assign the tenancy. No such claim is made. 3. Then it appears from letter dated 11.8.1989 that the Corporation recommended deletion of land from acquisition. But the petitioner does not even claim in the petition that the land has been deleted from the acquisition. Power to delete land from acquisition vests in the State Government and settled law is that after possession of the land is taken, there cannot be 7 any deletion of the land from acquisition. Therefore, the land continues to be an acquired land and vests either with the Corporation or the State Government. The award has been made and the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner has accepted the Award, in our opinion, therefore there will be no right which can be inherited or assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner does not really challenge the construction alleged to have been made on the land by the owner of the land. In any case, even according to the petitioner, the alleged construction was started after the year 1989 and there is no explanation to be found in the petition as to why if the construction was started after the year 1989, no efforts were made by the petitioner to get information as to under what situation the construction has been made by the owner on the land which has been acquired and as to why he has not approached this Court or any other competent authority to stop the construction. In our opinion, in the absence of any explanation for latches, the petition cannot be entertained. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner that he got 8 information in the year 2009 under Right to information Act and then immediately approached this Court, in our opinion, is meaningless, because if the construction was started after the year 1989, it was for the petitioner to explain as to what effort he has made to get information from the authority. 4. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, the petition is required to be rejected. It is accordingly so rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.R.JOSHI, J.)