MADHUKAR Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER OFFICE, CHANDRAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the Award passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 13/LA65/94-95 of mouza Ashti, dated 20-11-1998 is non-est. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 to restore the possession of the land admeasuring 1.30 Hector to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 20-11-1998 is bad in law as the Land Acquisition Officer could not have passed an Award after the expiry of period of two years from the date of issuance of section 6 Notification on 24-10-1996. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the provisions of section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act in support of his submission. Secondly, according to the petitioner, there was no resolution of MSRTC, the acquiring body, in respect of acquisition of the land and hence the Award is liable to be set aside in the absence of the resolution.

(2.) On the other hand, the respondents have strongly opposed the prayers made in the petition and it is submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of laches. It is submitted that the Award was passed on 20-11-1998 and the petition has been filed on 18-6-2013. It is submitted that the petitioner has lost the possession of the land on 22-5-1995 and after the Award is passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 11 of the Act, the petitioner had filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhanced compensation. It is submitted that the petitioner is awarded enhanced compensation in the reference and the MSRTC has filed a first appeal against the judgment of the reference Court. It is submitted that in the said first appeal the petitioner has filed cross-objection and sought further enhanced compensation. According to the respondents, in the aforesaid set of facts, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Award is not passed beyond the period of two years from the date of the last section 6 Notification on 23-11-1996. The respondents sought the dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of laches. The Award is passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 20-11-1998 and the petition challenging the Award has been filed on 18-6-2013. The petitioner has not explained the delay, much less satisfactorily explained the same. More than 15 years have lapsed from the date of the passing of the Award dated 20-11-1998. Merely because the petitioner claims that the Award is non est in view of the provisions of section 11A of the Act, the petition cannot be entertained in the year 2013, specially when the petitioner has admittedly lost the possession of the land on 22-5-1995. The fact that the Award is passed beyond the period of two years from the issuance of section 4 Notification is also disputed by the respondents.