1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1743 of 2008 (Surendra s/o. Wamanrao Gaidhane .vs. State & Ors.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : D.D.Sinha and Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, JJ. DATE : 22.4.2008. Heard Mr. P.A.Markandeywar, Adv. for the Petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner states that the grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is against the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated by the respondents for extension of goathan. It is contended that the population of concerned village is decreasing and therefore, there is no need for extension of gaothan; consequently, the land acquisition proceedings initiated for the purpose of extension of goathan are not necessary and hence, the same may be dropped. It is further contended by the learned counsel that though objection was raised by the petitioner at the time of enquiry u/s. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, was also not considered. Considered the contentions canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case, after Section 4 (1) notification, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has conducted enquiry u/s. 5 of the 2 said Act. The petitioner though claimed that he has submitted objection, however, his objection was not considered and the notification u/s. 6 of the Act came to be issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Petitioner should have approached this Court at an early stage atleast before publication of notification u/s. 6 under the Land Acquisition Act. It is difficult for us at such a belated stage to consider these aspects. Consequently, we are not inclined to show any indulgence in the present Writ Petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssj