IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 371 OF 2010 MR. BARNABAS P GEORGE ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA BY THE SECRETARY (REVENUE) AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent no.1,2. Coram:- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 14th July, 2010 P.C: We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the proceeding of acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2. The Petitioner claims to be a co-owner of several lands at village Quitol, Taluka Quepem, Goa. A Notification under section 4(1) of the said Act was published on 15th May,2006. A declaration under section 6 was published on 1st December, 2006. Award under section 11 of the said Act of 1894 was made on 12th April, 2007. The present petition appears to have been filed on 20th April,2010. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the delay in filing the present petition has been explained in the petition. He stated that the petitioner was unaware of the acquisition proceedings or the award till the end of year 2007 when notice of reference under section 30 of the said Act was served on the petitioner. He stated that even the notice under section 9 of the said Act was not served on the petitioner. He pointed out the averments made in paragraph 6 of the petition that the petitioner became aware of the award only when he received the notice somewhere in end of 2007 of reference under section 30 of the said Act. Paragraph 6 of the petition read thus: "The petitioner states that as he was not aware of the acquisition proceedings or the award, he could not even file an applicaiton for reference for enhancement (even if the acquisition was legal). The petitioenr came to know of the award, only when he received notice somewhere in end 2007, from the District Court of the apportionment reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer in view of the claims of the respondents nos.4 and 5. The Petitioenr then obtained various documents under the RTI Act, pursuant to letter dated 18.3.2010 and replies dated 24.3.10 and 31.3.10, thereto (copies whereof are hereto annexed as Annexure Pa colly) and is accordingly filing this petition challenging the acquisition. It may be mentioned that no notice for delivery of possession of the said property pursuant to the said award, has been received by the petitioner. As mentioned above, no work whatsoever for the development of the acquire land for auxiliary services or for a food park has been under taken by the respondent no.3 till date." 4. By an amendment to the petition, the petitioner contended that in or about January 2008, the petitioner along with his cousin (who resides in England) consulted a senior counsel at Panaji in order to challenge the acquisition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that a specific statement has been made by the petitioner that the file was kept by the senior counsel for about two years and was returned only in February 2010 that too,when the petitioner's said cousin who resides in England came down and met the said counsel requesting for returning of the file. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner is relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Harakchand Misirimal Solanki Vs. Collector and others.[ (2009) Suppl. Bombay Cases Reporter,979], which was reported sometime in December 2009. He submitted that by the said decision, it was held that section 7 of the said Act was mandatory and that acquisition made without compliance with section 7 was without jurisdiction. He pointed out that after the said decision was reported, an application was made by the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act on 18th March, 2010 to ascertain whether requirement of section 7 of the said Act was complied with. He pointed out that replies were received on 24th March,2010 and 31st March, 2010. He submitted that the delay has been adequately explained by the averments made in the petition, as amended. He submitted that on account of non compliance of section 7 of the said Act, the proceedings of acquisition have been rendered null and void. He pointed out that as regards one property,there was no notification issued under section 4(1) of the said Act and the said property has been incorporated for the first time in the declaration under section 6 of the said Act. He submitted that this is a case of gross illegality and moreover no notice of taking over possession has been served to the petitioner. 5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the decision of this Court in the case of Harakchand Misitimal Solanki Vs. Collector and ors. (supra) relied by the petitioner, the Division Bench has held that if there is gross and unexplained delay, a writ petition challenging the acquisition will have to be dismissed on that count. 6. In the petition, as originally filed, the petitioner has merely stated that he was served with notice of reference under section 30 of the said Act at the end of the year 2007. In the petition, as originally filed, he has come out with the case that after receiving the notice at the end of year 2007, the petitioner applied for various documents under the Right to Information Act on 18th March,2010. In the petition, as originally filed, there is no explanation as to the delay in filing an application under the R.T.I. The further explanation of delay comes by way of an application for amendment which was moved on 22nd June, 2010. The Petitioner has come out with the case by way of amendment that he had entrusted the papers of the case to a senior counsel in order to challenge the acquisition. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that in fairness to the senior counsel, his name has not been disclosed. Assuming that what is stated in the explanation incorporated by amendment is correct, it itself shows that there is complete inaction on the part of the petitioner. He claims that the papers were entrusted to the senior counsel in January, 2008 and the papers were returned in February,2010. He has further stated that despite several requests to draft the petition, the petition was not drafted. It is not possible to accept that a senior counsel had not drafted the petition for a period of two years. It is not possible to accept that the petitioner after having entrusted the papers to a senior counsel,in January,2008, he waited till February 2010. Even assuming that the papers were entrusted to a senior counsel in January 2008, there appears to be a negligence on the part of the petitioner in not following up the matter. As stated earlier, all this explanation comes up by way of an afterthought by filing an application for amendment of the petition. 7. Hence, this is a case where there is gross and unexplained delay in approaching the Court for challenging proceedings for acquisition on the ground of gross delay. Hence, we are not entertaining the petition. We may add here that we have not made any adjudication on the merits of the challenge to the acquisition. 8. The petition is accordingly rejected. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. ap/-