1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5984 of 1998 Narsingrao Krsuhnaji Shelke Age about 60 years, r/at Taluka Daund, Dist. Pune ....Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra 1a. The Distrct Re-settlement Officer, Pune Division, Pune. 1b. The District Collector, District Pune. 1c. The Special Land Acquisition Officer No. II, (Panset benefitted area Pune Division, Pune, new No. 13 (Panshet Punarvashan, Pune). 1d. The Commissioner under the Resettlement Act, (Punarvashan Branch, Pune Division, Pune) 2. Shri Laxman Ganpat Pasalkar Ganjane Road, Navi Peth, Lokmanya Nagar, Pune. ....Respondents Mr. S.P. Thorat, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for respondent no.1. 2 CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- March 18, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the Notification under Section 4, Section 6 as well as the Award in respect of land Gat No. 550 of Village Pargaon, Taluka: Daund, Dist. Pune. The said land has been acquired for the settlement of project affected persons. 3. The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that the said Gat No. 550 was not included in Section 4 Notification, as a result the said land cannot be acquired. Hence, the Award passed is also illegal. This grievance, however, is not supported by the material on record. 4. The Respondent in the reply filed before this Court has placed on record all the relevant Notifications as well as the Award. A corrigendum was issued to the original Section 4 Notification. As per the said corrigendum dated 29th October, 1971, published in Government Gazette dated 11th November, 1971, at page-98, it clearly includes Gat No. 550 (which constituted Survey No. 388/2) admeasuring 2H.07R. Even Section 6 Notification refers to Gat No. 550 (Survey No. 338/2) admeasuring 2H.02R. The Award passed by the acquiring Authority also refers to Gat No. 550 Part admeansuring 2H.02R and is included at sr. no. 35 of the Award statement. Our attention is also invited to the statement of the Petitioner recorded in Section 9(3) enquiry where he conceded 3 that Gat No. 550 admeasuring 2H.02R was under acquisition. 5. Suffice it to observe that the first ground pressed into service is devoid of merits as we are more than convinced that Gat No. 550, of which Survey No. 388/2 formed part, was notified for acquisition in the Notification under Section 4 as well as Section 6 and also specifically referred to as acquired land and compensation determined therefor in the Award by the acquiring Authority. The possession of the said land Gat No. 550 (Survey No.388/2) admeasuring 2H.02R has been taken on 2nd August, 1978, as noted in the possession panchanama. 6. To get over this position, Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the acquiring Authority was also proceeding against Survey No. 161/2 which is situated in southern side of Gat No. 550 although the same did not form part of Section 4 Notification or Section 6 Notification nor has been referred to in the Award dated 15th February, 1978. It is fairly accepted by the Respondents that the said Survey No. 161/2 is not part of the land which has been acquired by the Respondents. The land acquired as aforesaid is Gat No. 550 (Survey No. 388/2) admeasuring 2H.02R. It is unnecessary to burden this Judgment with the apprehension of the Petitioners in relation to Survey No. 161/2 which in our opinion is misplaced as the said land is not the subject matter of acquisition. 7. The second ground urged on behalf of the Petitioners is that the Award could not have been passed as Section 6 Notification had lapsed. The ground taken in the Writ Petition reads thus:- 4 “(j) That the whole acquisition proceedings beyond time of limitation because the Award under Section 11 is not made within a period of 2 years from the date of Publication of Declaration Under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Admittedly Declaration Under Section 6 is made in the year 1971 whereas the Award is passed under Section 11-A is on 14/3/1978.” 8. This ground once again is devoid of merits. The Petitioner has clearly glossed over the fact that the acquisition in the present case culminated with the Award dated 15th February, 1978, whereas Section 11A of the Act came into force after the Amendment Act of 1984. In other words, the said provision has no application to the fact situation of the present case. 9. To get over this position, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that even under the unamended Section 6 as applicable at the relevant time, the declaration ought to have been issued within three years from the date of Section 4 Notification. In the first place, this argument suffers from laches. In as much as, the Award has been passed on 15th February, 1978 whereas Writ Petition has been filed on 16th October, 1998. Moreso, the above contention has been raised only across the bar. The Petitioner has not taken such specific plea in the Writ Petition. Assuming that it was a legal question to be considered by the Court, we have no hesitation in taking the view that no indulgence can be shown to the Petitioner on the ground of laches. As aforesaid, the Award was passed on 15th February, 1978. Indeed, the Petitioners filed suit to challenge the said Award but the same was filed in the year 1989. The Suit has been dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable. As a matter of fact the suit as presented by the Petitioners was barred by limitation, since the declaration under Section 6 was published on 29th October, 1971. 5 10. In any case, even on merits, the grievance made before us that the declaration issued under Section 6 was impermissible, will have to be stated to be rejected. For, Section 4 Notification was issued and published on 20th February, 1970. The corrigendum was issued on 29th October, 1971 so as to include the disputed land Gat No. 550 pt. admeasuring 2H.07R. Section 6 Notification has been issued and published on 29th October, 1971. In that sense, it was well within the permissible period prescribed for issuance of declaration after the Section 4 Notification. 11. Counsel for the Petitioner would, however, contend that Section 4 Notification, in particular, corrigendum was issued on 29th October, 1971 and even Section 6 Notification came to be issued on the same day which was impermissible. This submission does not commend to us. As aforesaid, the original Section 4 Notification was issued on 20th February, 1970 and the corrigendum came to be issued on 29th October, 1971 which included the disputed land Gat No. 550 pt. for the proposed acquisition. Section 6 Notification coincided with the issuance of corrigendum and also refers to the disputed land Gat No. 550 (Survey No. 388/2) admeasuring 2H.02R. In that sense, there is no illegality committed in issuance of Section 6 declaration in respect of the disputed land. The dates mentioned in the Award regarding the publication of Section 4 and Section 6 Notifications have not been disputed before us. Going by the said dates, we have no hesitation in taking the view that Section 6 Notification as issued, in relation to Gat No. 550 pt. is valid and does not suffer from any infirmity. 12. As no other contention has been raised, the Petition fails, in so far as the challenge to the acquisition of land bearing Gat No. 550 pt. (original Survey 6 No. 388/2) admeasuring 2H.02R at village Pargaon, Taluka Daund, Dist. Pune. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)