1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3484/2010 (SHIVAJI PUNJAJI CHANDRAVANSHI & OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.U. Nemade, counsel for the petitioners. Shri A.M. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the R-1 & 2. Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, counsel for the R-3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 8 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Special land acquisition officer on 08.10.1989 as also the communication dated 11.11.2009 by which the petitioners were informed of the impugned order dated 08.10.1989. The lands of the ancestors of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and the other petitioners himself were acquired some time in the year 1980. The father of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 had not approached the reference Court seeking higher compensation. The cousin brother and the real brother of the petitioner no.4 had, however, filed a reference application for enhancement of compensation for the land bearing Survey No.64/4. The reference Court allowed the reference application in regard to certain other claimants and granted 2 enhanced compensation by the judgment and award dated 27.12.1988. The petitioners, who had not filed any reference application, filed applications for grant of certified copies of the judgment and award dated 27.12.1988 on 11.01.1989. The certified copies of the judgment and award were received by the petitioners on 12.07.1989. It appears that the petitioners filed the applications under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act on 28.08.1989. It further appears from the record that these applications were rejected by the Special land acquisition officer by an order dated 08.10.1989 on the ground that the applications were barred by limitation and in stead of filing separate applications, a common application was filed by the petitioners. The order dated 08.10.1989, passed by the special land acquisition officer is impugned in the instant petition. It is the case of the petitioners that the father of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and the other petitioners were making enquiries about the pendency of the applications under Section 28-A of the Act and they were informed by an communication dated 11.11.2009 that their applications were rejected by the impugned order dated 08.10.1989. In such circumstances, the petitioners are seeking a reconsideration and decision on the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Act. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents and the written submissions made on behalf of the respondents that the petition is liable to be dismissed mainly on the ground of delay and laches. It is necessary to note that the applications filed by the father of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and the other petitioners under 3 Section 28A of the Act was rejected as early as on 08.10.1989. The petitioners have belatedly approached this Court after a lapse of nearly 20 years. The delay caused in filing the writ petition has not been satisfactorily explained. A statement is made on behalf of the petitioners that they were making enquiries in regard to the pendency of the applications under Section 28A of the Act of 1894. This reason is, however, incredible as it is not expected of a party, who has filed an application under Section 28A of the Act, to wait for nearly 20 years on the pretext that they believed that the applications were still pending. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the writ petition needs to be entertained as the petitioners are not at fault is not well founded and is liable to be rejected. Moreover, the brother and cousins of the petitioner no.4 were parties to the land acquisition reference case in which they had claimed enhancement of compensation for land survey no.64/6. The writ petition suffers from laches and cannot be entertained after a period of more than 20 years i.e. after passing of the impugned order in the year 1989. The judgments reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500(1) (Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Versus The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & another), (2005) 7 SCC 431 (Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel & others Versus State of Gujarat through Dy. Collector Modasa & another) and 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 589 (Gajiram Pundlik Gawane & others Versus State of Maharashtra) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioners cannot be of any assistance to the case of the petitioners as the judgments are not on the point of laches and pertain to the provisions of Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 4 In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE APTE