By this appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants (original plaintiffs) have impugned the judgment and decree dated 2nd April 2011 passed by the Principal District Judge, Satara, dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.165 of 2005 filed by the appellants. The appellants had impugned the judgment and decree dated 29th April 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, dismissing Regular Civil Suit No.171 of 1992 filed by the appellants inter-alia praying for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit properties bearing survey no.222 (old), 234 (new), admeasuring 2-H 27-R situated at Wai and the property bearing survey No. 254/2-B (old), and the property bearing survey 8/2-B (new), admeasuring 1-H, 44-R situated at Shelarwadi. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this second appeal are as under:-

2. The parties in this judgment are described as per their original status in the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were the owners of the suit properties and were claiming to be in possession and cultivating the suit lands for a long period. It was the case of the plaintiffs that on the date of filing the suit, the plaintiff nos.1 to 3 and 6 were in actual possession of the suit lands.

3. Some time in the year 1985, the Sub Divisional Officer, Wai issued a notice under section 32(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short the said “MID Act”) to the plaintiff nos.1 to 3 and their mother Rahibai in respect of the suit land no.1-B and in respect of the land 1-A. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the said Rahibai had replied to the said notice on 22nd April 1989 by addressing a letter to the Sub Divisional Officer, Mahabaleshwar Division, Wai, requesting not to initiate any proceedings of the alleged acquisition in respect of the suit properties behind the back of the plaintiffs and herself and also prayed for personal hearing and sought permission to lead evidence. It is the case of the plaintiffs that though the said notice was duly received by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mahabaleshwar Division, Wai, he did not give any reply to the said notice and also did not give any opportunity to the plaintiffs or the said Rahibai of hearing or for adducing any evidence.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in the year 1990-91, the plaintiffs noticed that in the 7 x 12 extract in respect of the suit properties, their names were bracketed and the name of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation i.e. the defendant no.3 was entered into the ownership column. It was the case of the plaintiffs that neither any notice was served nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the plaintiffs before bracketing their names in the 7 x 12 extract. The plaintiffs challenged the said mutation entry by filing appropriate proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the same are pending.

5. On 27th March, 1991, the plaintiffs filed a suit (Regular Civil suit No.179 of 1992) inter-alia praying for a declaration of their title and declaration that the proposed action of acquisition of the suit properties by the defendants was illegal, void, malafide and was not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also prayed for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiffs did not challenge the award passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in respect of the suit properties. On 31st March, 1991, during the pendency of the said suit filed by the plaintiffs, the Sub Divisional Officer made an award in respect of the suit properties.

6. The defendant nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement on 18th January, 1993 and denied the allegations made by the plaintiffs in the plaint. The defendant nos.1 and 2 admitted that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit lands. On 21st February, 2004, the defendant no.3 i.e. MID filed a Pursis in the said suit and adopted the written statement filed by the defendan