1 RP-64-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.64 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5260 OF 2006 Manohar Padamndas Jani ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents Mr.D.S.Chandanani i/b. M/s. Lexim Associates for petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. RESERVED ON : September 2, 2011. PRONOUNCED ON: September 9, 2011. P.C. 1. Writ Petition No.5260 of 2006 was heard and decided by us on 20th December 2006. The petitioner – land owner had prayed for a declaration that the Land Acquisition proceedings in respect of his land admeasuring 5500 sq. mtrs. and part of Gat No.49 at Mulegaon Tanda had lapsed and 2 RP-64-2011 further prayed for setting aside the land acquisition proceedings by which the land came to be acquired for the purpose of Water Tank to be constructed for drinking water supply to the said village. The petitioner further prayed for restoration of the acquired land in his possession. It was mainly contended that the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the gazette on 18/5/2000 and on the chawdi of the village on 3/8/2000 which was the last publication. It was further submitted that the award was passed on 3/9/2002 i.e. beyond the period of two years and, therefore, on failure to maintain the Act schedule in terms of Section 11-A of the said Act, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. 2. Shri Babasaheb Beldar, the Special Land Acqusition Officer No.II, Solapur had filed affidavit in reply in the petition and submitted that the last publication on the Chawdi of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was on 3rd September 2000 and not on 3rd August 2000 as claimed by the petitioner and, therefore, the final award passed on 2nd September 2002 was not beyond the period of two years. By accepting the averments made in the affidavit we had rejected the petition on 20/12/2006. 3 RP-64-2011 3. This Review Petition has been filed on the basis of the documents which the petitioner obtained under the Right to Information Act after Writ Petition No.5260 of 2006 was decided by us. It was pointed out that there was no documentary proof in support of the contentions of the Land Acquisition Officer that the last publication on the Chawdi of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 3rd September 2000 and it has been emphatically stated that the declaration under Section 9(3) (4) of the Act was made on 3rd August 2000 on the basis of the documents received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act and obviously the declaration under Section 6 of the Act ought to have been published prior to 3rd August 2000. The draft award has been prepared on 2nd September 2002 i.e. beyond a period of two years and final award was not passed. Shri Babasaheb Beldar appeared before us and placed the record and we have noted that the last publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was prior to 2nd August 2000 and there is nothing on record to show that such a publication was done on 3rd September 2000. The report on the basis of which Shri Babasaheb Beldar had filed affidavit in reply in Writ Petition No.5260 of 2006 is not supported by any panchanama or any other 4 RP-64-2011 contemporaneous document which could be relied upon and such an averment was made only on the basis of the report received. It is, therefore, clear that the Land Acquisition Officer failed to pass the award within the stipulated period of two years from the date of last publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 4. In the premises, we allow the Review Petition and recall our order dated 20th December 2006 and the said petition is restored. 5. Despite the fact that the award has been passed beyond the period of two years, the petition cannot be allowed, as the land has already been utilised for the purpose it was acquired in as much as the water supply scheme for the village has been executed by the Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Construction Department No.1, Solapur. The petitioner, therefore, fairly conceded that his claim for reasonable compensation on the basis of the market value remains to be adjudicated and he is not happy with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It has also been pointed out that in the draft award the compensation payable to the petitioner was calculated at Rs.11,01,100/- (Rupees eleven lacs one thousand one hundred only) on the basis of the 5 RP-64-2011 market value of Rs.130/- per sq.mtr. in respect of the petitioner’s land. 6. We direct the Land Acquisition Officer to pass the award as per the draft award within four weeks from this order. We also direct the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the amount of Rs. 11,01,100/- (Rupees eleven lacs one thousand one hundred only) with the Reference Court at Solapur within eight weeks from today. The petitioner is at liberty to submit an application for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act to the Collector and if such an application is submitted within a period of four weeks, the Collector will process the same as if the limitation would commence from the date of publication of the award as per this order. We also clarify that the land under acquisition was 55 R. only as is clear form the measurements report submitted before us on 17/8/2011. Rights and contentions of the respective parties including the claim of market value and interest etc. are left open. 7. Writ Petition No.5260 of 2006 is disposed off in terms of the above order. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)