1 wp7715-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7715 OF 2009 1] Ramakant S/o Madhavrao Chevale and others .. PETITIONERS Vs 1] The State of Maharashtra and others ...RESPONDENTS ... Mrs.M.D.Thube-Mhase, Adv.for petitioners. Shri S.K.Kadam,AGP for R-State. ... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T.V.NALAWADE,JJ. DATE : 05/09/2011 ORAL ORDER: 1] Heard. 2] Petitioners claim rental compensation in view of the Government Resolutions dated 1/12/1972 and 24/3/1988. Petitioners contention is that possession of petitioners’ lands for purposes of laying down road was taken by the State in the year 1984. Petitioners further contention 2 wp7715-09 is that the lands were not even acquired by initiating proceedings under Land Acquisition Act. Reference was made to the proceedings of Writ Petition Nos.5441/07 and 2970/08. Consequent to order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2970/08, issue was dealt with by officers of the respondent-State. Claim of rental compensation was rejected, therefore, this Writ Petition. 3] Respondent filed affidavit in reply through Shri Vilas Haridasrao More, Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Nilanga, Dist.Latur on 11/1/2010, wherein, in para 5, it is contended as under : “[5] At the further out set I say and submit that the road was constructed under the EGS scheme from the lands owned by the petitioners in the year 1984. It was the grievance of the petitioners that without following procedure as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, the lands of the petitioners were acquired and no compensation was paid to them. Therefore, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 2970/2008 before this Hon’ble High Court and obtained directions to the respondents. 3 wp7715-09 In view of the directions issued by this Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.2970 of 2008 land acquisition proceedings were initiated and award came to be passed. Accordingly, the petitioners were granted compensation for acquisition of their lands. However, the grievance of the petitioners in respect of payment of rental compensation is concerned the respondent no.7 has passed impugned order dated 2/7/2009. The copy of the impugned order dated 2/7/2009 is already reproduced by the petitioners at page no.96 of the above mentioned writ petition. In the said order the respondent no.7 has stated that the petitioners have failed to produce the copy of the receipt regarding taking of possession as contemplated in Appendix-A in pursuance to para 5 of the Government Resolution dated 1/12/1972. A xerox copy of the receipt contemplated under Appendix-A in pursuance to the Government Resolution dated 1/12/1972 is enclosed herewith and marked as Exhibit 4 wp7715-09 R-1 collectively. The possession of the lands of the petitioners were never taken in advance by way of private negotiation and, therefore, petitioners are not entitled for the payment of rental compensation in pursuance to the Government Resolution dated 1/12/1972. Therefore, the petitioner’s application is accordingly rejected vide order dated 2/7/2009 by the respondent no. 7. The respondent no.7 is the Acquiring Body and the proceedings of the land acquisition are completed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Suwarna Project, Latur.” 4] Another affidavit in reply was filed through Shri A.B.Anandkar, who was at the relevant time working as Deputy Collector [E.G.S.] Latur on 14/7/2010. 5] Learned counsel for petitioners submits that it was obligatory on the part of respondents to give rental compensation and in absence thereof, petitioners had to resort to appropriate proceedings in filing Writ Petitions before this Court. Respondents dispute that possession of subject lands was taken much less in accordance with procedure 5 wp7715-09 established under Government Resolution and in accordance with Appendix-A to the said Resolution. Petitioners have placed heavy reliance on a possession receipt issued by Sub Divisional Engineer on 1/1/1984. Typed copy of the same is placed on record. Learned counsel of petitioners has even shown original receipt for our perusal. The stand of respondents is that road was constructed under E.G.S. scheme. Learned A.G.P. Shri Kadam submits that there is no reasonable explanation on the part of petitioners as to why they kept quiet for claiming rental compensation for last more than 20 years which itself disentitles petitioners. Learned A.G.P. placed reliance on reported judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others V/s Digambar and others AIR S.C.C. 1995 page 1991. Learned A.G.P. further placed reliance on order passed in Writ Petition No.7827/09 [Coram : Naresh H.Patil and K.K.Tated,JJ.] on 8/7/2010 and in Writ Petition No.2539/2004 [Coram : P.V.Hardas and N.H.Patil,JJ.] on 6/4/2005. We have perused said judgment and orders. 6] We have perused relevant judgment and orders passed by this Court, affidavits in reply and considered submissions advanced. We find that there are latches on the part of petitioners in raising issue of payment of rental compensation. The delay is abnormal and which goes to the root of the matter. Apart from issue of latches, evidence in respect of taking over possession of subject land is not at all 6 wp7715-09 convincing. Reliance of petitioners is on possession receipt issued by Sub Divisional Engineer in the year 2008, which is not supported by the State. It would be therefore, not appropriate to place implicit reliance on such a receipt issued in the year 2008. Considering in its entirety, we are not satisfied that petitioners claim is raised within a reasonable time and is based on sound basis. There is no merit in the Petition. Petition is dismissed. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] umg/wp7715-09