1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1899 of 2009 [Rishi Ravi Saraf & another Vs. Collector, Nagpur & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mrs. Gauri Venkatraman, Adv., for the petitioners. Mrs. Bharti, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondents. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND R.K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 19th January, 2010. 1. This Writ Petition challenges the Award dated 3rd November, 2001 passed by the respondent no.1-Collector in respect of acquisition of Land Survey No. 62, admeasuring 4.223 hectares, Patwari Halka No.4, situated at village Fetri, Taluka & Distt. Nagpur. 2. Heard Mrs. Gauri Venkatraman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Bharti Dangre, learned Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondents. 3. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of land in question was published on 15th October, 1998. The Declaration under Section 6 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Official 2 Gazette on 14th October, 1999 and on the same date in the newspapers also. The Award was passed on 3rd November, 2001. Present petition is filed on 23rd April, 2009 challenging the said Award. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the notice under Section 9 (1) and (2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 20th October, 1999, whereas it is alleged by the respondents that the last publication under Section 6 (2) was made on 5th November, 1999. She further points out that the Award was passed on 3rd November, 2001. According to her, the notice under Section 9 (1) and (2) could not precede the last date of notification alleged to have been published on 5th November, 1999. According to learned counsel, the last date of Declaration under Section 6 (2) has to be taken as 14th October, 1999 and hence the Award passed on 3rd November, 2001 is beyond the period of two years and hence the proceedings for acquisition stand lapsed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Ramrao son of Pralhadrao Deshmukh (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. [2008 (1) ALL MR 234, in support of her contention that the notice under Section 9 (1) (2) could not precede the last notification under Section 6 (2). 6. As against this, Mrs. Dangre, learned 3 Addl. Govt. Pleader, relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. & another Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. [(2008) 4 SCC 695], in support of her contention that the Writ Petition challenging Section 6 Notification cannot be entertained after the Award is passed, and it has to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. According to learned Addl. Govt. Pleader, this Judgment takes review of all cases and lays down a law that the belated challenge to the acquisition of land has to be rejected. 7. The decision of the Division Bench relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners pertained to the acquisition made in the year 1991, Award passed on 26th November, 1993 and the petition was filed in the year 1994. Here, in the present case, the Award was passed on 3rd November, 2001 and the petition has been filed in the year 2009, i.e., almost after a period of eight years. The petitioners had preferred Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 329 of 2005 which was partly allowed on 30th March, 2008. In view of this, the reported judgment, in our opinion, is of no help to the petitioners. 8. As against this, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra in Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. & another's case clearly supports proposition that the Writ Petition having been filed after taking over 4 possession and the Award having become final, deserves to be dismissed. 9. In view of above, we do not find any substance in the present petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Judge Judge |Hedau|