HIRALAL KARSHANBHAI Vs. RELIANCE PETROLIAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present First Appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award rendered in Regular Civil Suit No.86/2000 by the Learned 5th Additional Sr. Civil Judge dated 21.03.2011 on the grounds stated in the memo of First Appeal inter alia that the notice as required under Section 45 of the Land Acquisition Act has not been served upon the appellants. It is also contended that the appellants are the purchasers of the land in question and though it is recorded, the order in Land Acquisition Reference No.7/1993 has been passed in collusion with the respondent no.3 and, therefore, the present Appeal may be allowed. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned judgment and award is in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard has been given to the appellants, who are the original owners and, therefore, the impugned award is illegal. It is contended that it is lawful for the Officer to publish notification and if such notification with the advertisement was published, the persons affected would have lodged the claim. It is contended that the present Appeal may be allowed.

(2.) LEARNED Sr. Counsel, Mr.Nanavati has filed reply in the Civil Application for condonation of delay explaining the delay. It has been submitted that the land in question has been acquired, for which, the possession was taken in the year 1994 and the Land Acquisition Reference No.7/1993 was going on to the knowledge of the present appellants and though the appellants claim to be subsequent purchasers, they have not taken any steps to make entry mutated in their favour till 2000. Further even thereafter for the first time, Suit is filed in 2000, which would be even otherwise time barred. He, therefore, submitted that as observed by the Court below, the procedure as required under the Law has been followed and as there was no objection received, the proceedings have attained the finality and, therefore, the Suit filed by the appellants herein has been dismissed. LEARNED Sr. Counsel, Mr.Nanavati submitted that the present Appeal may not be entertained. He pointedly referred to the observations made in the impugned judgment of the Court below that the possession was with the appellants cannot be believed. It is specifically observed that the respondent nos.1 and 3 have taken over the possession in 1994 as reflected from the record. He, therefore, emphasized that the Court below has rightly observed that though the land was purchased by the appellant in 1994, why the entry was not mutated thereafter and he has not shown any diligence and remained negligence.

(3.) IN view of the dismissal of main First Appeal, Civil Application for stay does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.