1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3660 OF 2010 (Shri Arun B. Bhagat .vs. The Collector, Nagpur and Ors.) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 16th September, 2010. Heard Mr. P.S.Sadavarte, Adv. for the petitioner and Mrs.B.H.Dangre, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No.1. By this petition, the petitioner claims two reliefs : 1) to declare that the Award u/s. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) made on 2.11.1992 in relation to the land of the petitioner is invalid because it was not made within the time limit allowed by Section 11-A of the Act. 2) In the alternative, the petitioner challenges the order passed by Reference Court holding that the reference made by the petitioner u/s. 18 of the Act is not within limitation. So far as the first aspect of the matter is concerned, the Award was made on 2.11.1992. Admittedly, the petitioner was served with notice u/s. 12 (2) of the Act on 7.11.1992. Now the petition filed in the year 2010 challenging validity of the order, obviously, 2 cannot be entertained because of laches. When this was pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, he submitted that, in the year 1955, he had made an application for reference and that application remains pending and then the matter was pending before the Reference Court and thereafter, the first appeal filed in this Court was withdrawn. According to him, that time should be taken into account while considering the question of laches. In our opinion, the time spent in prosecuting the reference is not relevant for deciding the question of laches occurred in approaching this Court for setting aside the Award because when reference is made, it is not challenged in that reference. The Award is not challenged, only enhancement in the amount of compensation is sought. The learned Counsel then submitted that his reference was also not barred by the law of limitation. Perusal of the Award made by the Reference Court shows that the Reference Court has held that, admittedly, notice u/s. 12 (2) of the Act was served on the petitioner on 7.11.1992. Pursuant to that notice, he has also accepted compensation under protest. The Reference Court has, therefore, held that u/s. 18 of the Act the application for reference should have been made within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, has relied on the following judgments : 3 1) AIR 1978 BOMBAY 325, Mangilal Jawanmal and Ors. vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (I), Thana. 2) AIR 1961 SC 1500, Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh .vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and anr. 3) AIR 1963 SC 1604, State of Punjab .vs. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and anr. 4) 2010 (4) Mh.L.J. 564, Bhagwan Das and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. We have gone through the afore-cited judgments. We find that all the aforesaid judgments except the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das and Ors. (cited supra) deal with proviso (b) appearing below sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, which, in turn, deals with the period of six months' limitation from the date of Collector's Award. None of these judgments deal with first part of that clause which deals with six weeks' limitation from the date of receipt of notice issued by the Collector u/s. 12 of the Act. That position is considered by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Bhagwan Das and Ors. (cited supra) and the Supreme Court has held that when a notice 4 u/s. 12 (2) of the Act is served on a party, the limitation is six months from the date of receipt of notice. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, no fault can be found with the order of Reference Court holding that the reference is not within the period of limitation provided by law. Taking overall view of the matter, there is no substance in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais