1 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN ITS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3247 OF 2009 1. Smt. Nirmala Ravindra Shembekar Adult, Occ: agriculture Residing at 530 Sindh Society, Aundh, Pune 411 007 2. Smt. Vrinda Mahadeo Shembekar alias Vrinda Ajay Mavalankar, Adul, Occ: agriculture, Residing at Baramati, Tal Baramati, Dist Pune through Power of Attorney holder Shri Udhay Mahadeo Shembekar, adult, Occ: agriculture, Residing at Baramati, Tal: Baramati, District Pune 3. Smt. Geeta Ravindra Shembekar adult, Occ: agriculture, Residing at 530 Sindh Society, Aundh Pune 411 007 Through the Power of Attorney holder Shri R.D.Shembekar, Adult, Occ: Business, Residing at 530 Sindh Society, Aundh Pune 411 007 4. Shri Baban Baburao Gaikwad Adult, Occ: Agriculture Residing at : At & Post Jambe Tal Mulshi, District Pune ..Petitioners Vs. 1.State of Maharashtra (Summons to be served on the Learned 2 Additional Government Pleader appearing for State of Maharashtra Under Order XXVII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Code 1908) 2.Additional Divisional Commissioner Pune Division, Pune (Summons to be served on the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for State of Maharashtra Under Order XXVII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Code 1908) 3.The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2, Pune (Summons to be served on the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for State of Maharashtra Under Order XXVII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Code 1908) 4.The District Rehabilitation Officer, Pune (Summons to be served on the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for State of Maharashtra Under Order XXVII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Code 1908) 5.Shri Jaywant Ramakant Khole, Adult, Occ : Agriculture, Residing at At & Post Jambe Tal Mulshi, District Pune 6.Shri Jitendra Ramakant Khole, Adult, Occ : Agriculture, Residing at At & Post Jambe Tal Mulshi, District Pune 3 7.Smt. Pushpa Ramakant Khole, Adult, Occ : Agriculture, Residing at At & Post Jambe Tal Mulshi, District Pune 8.Smt. Jayshri Ramakant Khole, Adult, Occ : Agriculture, Residing at At & Post Jambe Tal Mulshi, District Pune 9.Eknath Bhagwan Kedari 10.Keshav Anna Kedari 11.Shreeram Anna Kedari 12.Balu anna Kedari 13.Smt. Laxmibai Bhagwan Kedari 14.Sanjay Bhagwan Kedari All are residing At & Post Jambhe Taluka Mulshi Dist Pune ..Respondents Shri A.V.Anturkar for the Petitioners Shri V.S.Gokhale AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Shri R.V.Govilkar for Respondent Nos.9 to 14 Coram: P.B.MAJMUDAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. 16th June, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SHRI R.M.SAVANT, J.) 1. Rule. Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the Award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 2, bearing No.LAW/NO/2/SR/278/88 dated 31-10-1992 and also for quashing and setting aside the Mutation Entry No.1629, 1862 made in the revenue records in respect of the land in question. In so far as, the challenge to the Award is concerned, the same is on the ground that the Award has not been declared within a period of two years of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said issue is no more res-integra and concluded by the order of the Division Bench of this Court comprising of B.P.Singh C.J. (as His Lordship then was) and Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J. dated 30-10-2001. The Award was quashed on the ground that the last publication under Section 6 was on 22-9-1990 and the Award declared on 31-10-1992, was, therefore, not within the period 5 of two years as postulated in Section 11A of the said Act. 3. The record of the instant Petition discloses that the above Petition had also been allowed by a Division Bench of this court by Judgment and Order dated 31-3-2003, but thereafter a Review came to be filed by Respondent Nos.9 to 14, which Review was sought on the ground that the said Respondents were not heard in the matter as they were not impleaded. The Review was allowed on 25-7-2001, on the said ground and the Judgment and Order dated 31-3-2003 allowing the Petition was set aside and the Petition was restored to file. This is how the Petition is once again placed before us for final hearing. 4. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. The factual position as above is not disputed by the Learned AGP Shri Gokhale as well as by the Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.9 to 6 14, and, therefore, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.4099 of 2001 dated 30-10-2001, the above Petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (A). Rule is accordingly made absolute with parties to bear their respective costs. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)