BAPU GOPALA PATIL Vs. DIRECTOR OF RESETTLEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the matter was called earlier Shri Pandit, appearing for the petitioners was not present. Therefore. the matter was dismissed for default. Thereafter, Mr.Pandit appeared and made an oral application for restoration of the petition, saying that at the time when the matter was called in this court he was on his legs before the another bench of this Court. Mr. Gokhale, appearing for the Respondents, has no objection for restoration of the petition. Hence, oral application made by Mr.Pandit is allowed and the order dated 30th October, 1996 dismissing the petition for default, is hereby set aside.

(2.) THE matter is taken on the board by consent of the parties and heard finally.

(3.) THE Respondents have not filed any affidavit in reply, controverting the contentions of the petitioners made in the petition. The petitioners have urged that as per the provision contained under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, on Award under Section 11 of the Act, has to be made within the period of two years from the date on which the declaration under Section 6 is published. In the absence of any affidavit in reply by the respondents we have no alternative but to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners that as the Award is not made till 25.4.1989 when the petitioners approached this Court, it has to be held that the proceedings for acquisition of the petitioners land have lapsed. Though, a specific case is made out that the Award was not made within the period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the Respondents have not cared to dispute this contention raised on behalf of the petitioners and they have not given any facts controverting the case made out by the petitioners.