-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.2934 OF 2007 NO.2934 OF 2007 NO.2934 OF 2007 Vijay Narayan Thatte and ors. ...Petitioners v/s State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr B.B. Saraf with Mr Subhash Jadhav i/b M/s ALMT Legal for Petitioners. Mr N.P. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr N.N. Bhadrashetty for Respondent No.5. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND V.M. KANADE JJ. DATE : 21ST JANUARY 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the Notification issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1994 acquiring the land of the petitioners for public purpose viz. for establishment of market of agricultural produce by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. There is no dispute that the objections raised by the petitioners were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and report was submitted to the Commissioner who thereafter issued Notification. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, we find that there was delay in the Land Acquisition Officer submitting report to the Commissioner under section 5A of the said Act. The learned counsel appearing for Market Committee fairly stated before us that if that is the ground on which the Notification is found to be infirm, then the Market Committee, for whose benefit the land is to be acquired, is willing to pay compensation at the rate existing on the date of Notification under section 6 instead of Notification under section 4. The Notification under section 6 was issued on 30th October 2006. We put it to the learned counsel appearing for petitioners that the -3- offer made on behalf of the Market Committee is fair and we also indicated that as the land is being acquired for setting up market for agricultural produce by the statutory body, it cannot be said that the land is not required for public purpose. The learned counsel sought time to take instructions from the clients twice. Ultimately he reported that he cannot accept that offer. In our opinion, there can be no debate that the purpose for which land is being acquired is public purpose. In the earlier round of litigation before this Court, the petitioners have undertaken that they will not raise any objection on the ground of delay in issuing Notification under section 6 after issuance of Notification under section 4 and therefore, really speaking, the petitioners cannot raise objection that there was delay in issuing Notification under section 6 after hearing the objections under section 5A. Still, as observed above, the offer was made on behalf of the Market Committee that they will pay compensation at the rate prevailing on the date of section 6 Notification. The petitioners refused to accept this offer. This shows that the real intention of the petitioners is to prevent the land being acquired compulsorily. In our opinion, considering the statement made on behalf of the petitioners, which is recorded in the order dated 20th January 2004, passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the Notification issued under section 6 -4- cannot be challenged by the petitioners on the ground of delay and as we find that the land is definitely needed for public purpose. In our opinion, it would not be proper to entertain the petition in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition is rejected. Civil application No.1448 of 2007 is disposed off. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( V.M. KANADE J.)