IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 163 OF 2011 SHRI JOSINHO CORREIA AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Additional Govt. Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 16th March, 2011 P.C.: By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Notifications dated 01-09-2008 and 23-09-2009 in so far as the petitioners land is concerned. 2. The petitioners claim to have interest in the land under the survey numbers which are mentioned particularly in the petition and at Annexure-A. The survey plan showing the plots is at Annexure-A-1. 3. It is the case of the petitioners, that the lands were sought to be taken forcibly and without resorting to law by the respondent. Therefore, a civil suit was filed by them before the District Court, Margao on 09-04-2004 being civil suit No. 1167/2004. This suit came to be dismissed. An appeal (First Appeal No. 115/2006) has been filed against the said Judgment and Decree and the said appeal is pending. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that lands were notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Notification was dated 01-09-2008. Objections were filed under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act on 03-10-2008. The objections raised were that the lands were notified for acquisition for the benefit of one Paulo and Silvia Pereira whose houses are located in the survey numbers indicated in the petition. This was at the behast of the local M.L.A. and therefore the acquisition is malafide. 5. The statement was recorded on 14-11-2008. The second respondent submitted report on 31-08-2009. Thereafter, notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 particularly under Section 6,9 and 10 have been issued. An award has also been passed on 19-10-2010. 6. This writ petition has been filed questioning the acquisition and alleging that it is malafide. At the outset, the learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondents pointed out that this Court should not entertain this petition since an award is made and the petition is barred by delay and laches. The petitioners were aware of the proceedings throughout and the subsequent developments and hence, this petition should not be entertained and dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Another V/S State of Rajasthan & Others, A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 1494. 7. From a perusal of the Notifications, there is much substance in the submission made by the Advocate General. The land acquisition was notified by issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 01-09-2008 and the statement was recorded on 14-11-2008 itself. The report of respondent no. 2 was forwarded on 31-08-2009. Notification dated 23-09-2009 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued. Notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on 13-04-2010. Now, the award has already been made, in such circumstances we are of the view that this writ petition cannot be entertained. The petitioners have approached this court belatedly and a perusal of the writ petition shows that there is no explanation as to why the petitioners did not approach this Court earlier. It seems that merely because possession is not taken, the petitioners are before this Court. In such circumstances, finding that the challenge is belated and delay is not explained, we refuse to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is summarily rejected. No costs. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. EV