IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 37 OF 2004. Mr.Krishnath Shirodkar, major, resident of Firguem Bhat, Nerul, Bardez, Goa. ... Petitioner. VERSUS 1. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary, with his office at Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Land Acquisition Office, P.W.D. Cell, Altinho, Panaji, Goa. ... Respondents. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Naik, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr. H.D. Naik, Addl. Government Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & P.V. HARDAS & P.V. HARDAS & D.G. D.G. D.G. KARNIK, JJ. KARNIK, JJ. KARNIK, JJ. DATE: 15TH MARCH, 2004. ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER HARDAS, J.) (PER HARDAS, J.) (PER HARDAS, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, Petition taken up for hearing at the stage of admission. 2. This petition impugns the Award dated 20.06.2003 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer acquiring the land of the petitioner and others for construction of a road. The challenge to the acquisition in the present petition is restricted to a small stretch of land acquired for the road which the petitioner has described as "objectionable -- 2 -- portion". Notification under Section 4 was issued which is dated 9.07.2001. Thereafter declaration under Section 6 was issued which is dated 17.07.2002. The Award came to be passed on 20.06.2003 and in pursuance thereof possession was taken on 15.10.2003. 3. The objection is taken by the respondents at the very threshold that after the Award had been passed and the possession had been taken from the petitioner, challenge to the acquisition is not maintainable. 4. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.143/2003 dated 22.07.2003 to which one of us (Hardas, J.) was a party. The Division Bench in the aforesaid Judgment, after considering the various Judgments of the Apex Court, came to the conclusion that in the facts of that case a personal hearing in an inquiry under Section 5-A had not been given to the petitioner therein and consequently therefore entertained the petition. The Division Bench distinguished the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tej Kaur and others v. State of Tej Kaur and others v. State of Tej Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others [(2003) 4 S.C.C., 485 Punjab and others [(2003) 4 S.C.C., 485 Punjab and others [(2003) 4 S.C.C., 485. The said decision of the Supreme Court, in turn, stated that a -- 3 -- plea that the petitioner was not heard on the objections which he had filed was not a plea available for questioning the Award of the Land Acquisition proceedings. This judgment of the Apex Court was distinguished by the Division Bench in the facts of the case which were before the Division Bench. 5. In the present case the petitioner had filed his objections. Thereafter the objections were considered by the authorities. Thereafter a declaration under Section 6 came to be issued. The Award was passed and the possession of the land was taken. The petitioner had the knowledge about the pending land acquisition proceedings and the declaration under Section 6 and the Award which was passed. In such circumstances, according to us, the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 143/2003 Shri Charles F. Pais v. State of Goa and others dated 22nd July, 2003 is not applicable to the facts of this case. -- 4 -- 6. We accordingly see no merit in the Petition and the Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. P.V. HARDAS, J. sl. D.G. KARNIK, J.