Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri V.P. Maldhure, AGP for the respondents State.

2. In this petition, the petitioners sought to declare the land acquisition proceeding initiated under section 6 notification dated 18.12.1995 in respect of land Gat No. 176, Mz. Khelbar, Area 1.47 Hectare, Tq. Jalgaon Jamod, District - Buldhana (hereinafter referred to as 'subject land or said land') as lapsed and the Award No. 1/11994-95 dated 07.09.2017 passed in the said proceedings by respondent No. 2 - Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) be set aside.

3. It is stated that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 9 were the erstwhile owners of the subject land and petitioner Nos. 10 and 11 are the purchasers of the same from petitioners No. 1 to 9 vide registered deed of Conveyance dated 29.03.2006 for the consideration of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-(Three crores).

4. In the year 1976, the aforesaid property was reserved in the Development Plan (D.P.) for Jalgaon-Jamod for the purposes of Civil Court, Jalgaon-Jamod vide reservation No. 14. However, the said purpose did not survive as the respondents acquired another land for construction of Civil Court building at Jalgaon.

5. It is further submitted that in the year 1992-93, the D.P. was modified under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as MRTP Act) and the said land was re-reserved for the Government Technical High School.

6. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 initiated land acquisition proceedings and issued Notification on 18.12.1995 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1894) read with Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act and the same was published on 13.01.1996.

7. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the final Award dated 07.09.2017 came to be passed by Respondent No. 2 - LAO, by considering the market value of the property prevailing on the date of section 6 notification, which is nothing but the gross abuse of the powers by the officers dealing with the acquisition proceedings.

8. In the interregnum period between Section 6 notification and the final award dated 07.09.2017, it is stated that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 9 filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings on the ground of change of user and in the said petition, this Court passed an order of status quo for possession on 09.07.1996. The said petition, later on, came to be dismissed by this Court on 27.11.1997 and in consequence thereof the interim relief of status quo stands vacated. The SLP against the said order was also dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 25.10.1999.

9. It is further stated that the Review Petition No. 97 of 2000 filed by the petitioners before this Court was also dismissed on 11.11.2014. However, there was no stay operating against the acquisition proceedings after dismissal of writ petition by this Court on 27.11.1997.

10. The petitioners state that it took more than 22 years for respondent No. 2 to pass an Award and that too on the basis of market value prevailing on the date of Section 6 notification, which is nothing but arbitrary exercise of powers on the part of the officers dealing with acquisition proceedings.

11. In this petition, the petitioners sought quashing and setting aside of the Award dated 07.09.2017 and also sought direction to issue a fresh notification under Section 19 of the New Land Acquisition Act of 2013, read with Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act.

12. Respondent No. 2 - Land Acquisition Officer, in his affidavit in reply branded the petition as baseless, unfounded and without any substance as according to him the challenge to the acquisition proceedings was already dismissed upto the level Hon'ble Apex Court and the Review Petition was also dismissed. The respondent No. 2, during the pendency of the proceedings before this court and thereafter before the