IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 254 OF 2010 MR. MICHEL DIAS ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Galileo Teles, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S.Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. P. Talaulikar, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Coram:- D. G. KARNIK & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 1st September, 2010 P.C. Heard. 2. By this Petition, the Petitioner had originally challenged the Notification under Section 6 issued under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 16th January, 2009. In view of the fact that the award passed thereafter the same has also been challenged by an amendment. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the land was acquired for Gujarati Samaj Education Trust (Respondent No.3) which was a private trust and hence the land could not be acquired for it. Under Section 3(f) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquisition of land for any educational purpose could be made only in favour of the society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and not in favour of a private trust. 4. The document placed on record by the Petitioner himself disclose that the Respondent No.3, for whom the land is acquired, is a society registered under Societies Registration Act,1860. The Trust Deed itself mentions it to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Further more, the letter dated 25th July, 2008 filed on record at Exhibit 'G' by the Petitioner also discloses that the Respondent No.3 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The contention of the Petitioner that respondent No.3 is a private trust and, therefore, the acquisition of land is not for public purpose cannot be accepted. 5. We are also of the view that the Petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. Though Notification under Section 6 was published on 16th January, 2009, the Writ Petition was filed on 14th September, 2009 i.e. after lapse of nearly eight months of publication of the Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The delay, in our view, is not satisfactorily explained. 6. For these reasons, we are decline to entertain the Petition which is hereby rejected. D. G. KARNIK, J. F. M. REIS, J. at*