Bombay High Court
RAOSAHEB VITHAL VANVE DIED THROUGH LRS RAHIBAI RAOSAHEB VANVEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is dismissed for inordinate delay and lack of merit.
Summary
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing authorities to measure a parcel of land (Gat No. 106) that had been acquired for a road project. The land was taken into possession in August 1979, with acquisition notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and a final award passed on 22 February 1989. The petitioner neither filed a claim in response to the Section 9(3) notice nor accepted compensation or raised objections after the Section 12(2) notice. After more than 30 years, the petitioner approached the court, which held that the petition was barred by inordinate delay and lapsed, and dismissed it as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a delay of over 30 years on a petition seeking mandamus for land measurement under the Land Acquisition Act?
- Whether the petitioner’s failure to file a claim or objection under Sections 9(3) and 12(2) bars the relief sought?
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 11, 12(2), 4, 6, 9(3)
Subjects
- land acquisition
- mandamus
- delay
- statutory notice
- compensation
- measurement of land
- section 9(3)
- section 12(2)
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:14444-DB
907 WRIT PETITION NO. 1837 OF 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
907 WRIT PETITION NO. 1837 OF 2020
RAOSAHEB VITHAL VANVE DIED THROUGH LRS RAHIBAI RAOSAHEB
VANVE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…
Adv. Naikwade Shivaji K. for the Petitioner
Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for State
…
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 02.04.2026
PER COURT:
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs :
“A] This writ petition may kindly be allowed.
B] By issuing the writ of mandamus or any other writ in the
like nature, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be directed to the
respondent authorities, to measure the land in gat no. 106 of the
petitioner situated at village Bordevi Tanda, Tq. and Dist. Beed
acquired for the construction of Mhalasjawala-Pimpalner-Surdi
road in Tq. and Beed District.
C] Any other equitable and suitable relief in favour of the
petitioner may kindly be granted.”
2. Affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent – Special Land Acquisition
Officer. It is a matter of record that possession of the petitioner’s land
was taken in the month of August 1979, and thereafter, by following the
due procedure of law, an award came to be passed on 22.02.1989 by the
ksk/ 1/2
907 WRIT PETITION NO. 1837 OF 2020
Land Acquisition Officer. Prior to the acquisition, a joint measurement
was carried out. Notification under Section 4 was published in the
Government Gazette on 27.02.1986 and under Section 6 on 09.04.1987.
On the basis of the said notifications, an area admeasuring 0.24 R from
Gat No. 106 came to be acquired.
3. After declaration of the final award under Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act on 22.02.1989, notice under Section 9(3) of the Act was
issued to all interested persons. However, the petitioner did not file any
claim in response to the said notice. Thereafter, notice under Section
12(2) was issued on 23.05.1990; however, the petitioner neither
accepted the compensation nor raised any objection and/or filed a
reference.
4. In this view of the matter, since the petitioner has approached this
Court after a delay of more than 30 years, we are not inclined to
entertain the petition on the ground of inordinate delay and latches. For
the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, stands
dismissed.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]
ksk/ 2/2
Checking your session…