1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7827 OF 2009 [ Bhimrao Ramchandra Kaname Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders Shri.A.V.Patil,Advocate holding for Shri V.D.Gunale,Advocate for petitioner Smt.Y.M.Kshirsgar,A.G.P.for Respondents. .... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 8TH JULY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner claims that he was beneficiary of Award, dated 21.02.1991 under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner filed Application under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. 2 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders 3. In the year 2006, the petitioner claimed rental compensation. The petitioner did not receive any communication from the respondent-State, therefore, the petition is filed by the petitioner. 4. The respondent-State filed affidavit in reply. The State has prominently raised issue of latches. 5. We find that there is abnormal delay to approach this Court for claiming rental compensation. The petitioner has not explained the delay satisfactorily. It is admitted position that rental compensation is to be paid to the interested persons under the Government Resolution. The authorities are supposed to calculate the rental compensation and pay it to the interested persons in time 3 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders but no such steps were taken. In exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, after 19 years the petition can not be entertained and on that ground the petition is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK