1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7739 of 2010 Waman Vishwanath Samudre Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. Respondents Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for the respondents. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE & SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 31ST AUGUST, 2010. ORAL ORDER [ PER SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.] :- 1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner herein has filed the present petition praying that direction be issued to the respondent to forward the Reference Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the concerned civil court for adjudication. The second prayer is that the civil court be directed to dispose of the reference petition filed by the petitioner expeditiously on its own merits. 2] It is the contention of the petitioner that agricultural land bearing Gat Nos. 138 and 143 situated at village Borgaon (Kh), Taluka Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad to the extent of 1 Hectare 22R and 2 1Hectare 3 R, was acquired by the respondents for public purpose i.e. for construction of Raigavan Medium Project, Borgaon. Accordingly, a notification was published on 6/2/1986 in the Government Gazette. Pursuant to the said acquisition, the respondent No.2 passed award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act in September, 1986 and thereby granted some compensation to the petitioner, which was paid to him on 24/9/1986. 3] It is the contention of the petitioner that the said amount of compensation was inadequate and meager and, therefore, he moved a Reference Petition. However,the grievance is that the Reference Petition filed by the petitioner was not forwarded to the concerned Civil Court,as the papers were not traceable in the office of the respondent No.1. 4] However, it is apparent that the petitioner approached to this court after a lapse of a period of 24 years since compensation was awarded to the petitioner in September, 1986. Moreover, no reasons have been specified and said delay and laches have not been explained by the petitioner in the petition. Hence, the petition is sans any merit and the same stands dismissed summarily on the ground of said delay. [SHRIHARI P. DAWARE,J,.] [R.S. MOHITE,,J.] grt/wp