The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse if the possession of the land was not taken and compensation was not paid within the prescribed time.

JUDGMENT :

R. D. Dhanuka, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Patel, learned Additional Government Pleader waives service on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Naphade, learned counsel waives service on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 8. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting-aside the award bearing No.L.A./S.R./B19/99 dated 30th April, 2001 and seeks writ of mandamus to release the petitioner’s land from acquisition and for an order and direction against respondents to carry out the necessary corrections in the record of rights about the release of the petitioner’s land from acquisition. The petitioner also prays for an order and declaration that the land acquisition proceedings in relation to the petitioner’s land bearing Gat No.295 admeasuring 80 Ares of Village Kapurhol, Taluka – Bhor, District – Pune (hereinafter referred to as “writ property”) and the lands stand released from acquisition.

3. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and other co-owners are the owners of land bearing Gat No.295 of Village Kapurhol, Taluka – Bhor, District – Pune totally admeasuring 2 Hectares and 15 Are. Out of the said land, an area of 1 Hectare and 60 Are is the subject matter of this petition.

4. According to the petitioner, the land bearing Gat No.295 was originally owned by Shri Narayan Genba Chikane and Shri Pandurang Gen Chikane. On 5th May, 1999, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Land Acquisition Act”) came to be issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the writ property. Hearing was given to the petitioner on 10th August, 1999 under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette on 2nd July, 2000. Notification under Section 9(3) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 4th October, 2000. On 30th April, 2001, the Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award in respect of the writ property along with several other properties.

5. It is the case of the respondents that on 6th December, 2000, the petitioner had applied to the Office of the Additional Commissioner, Pune, for offering an alternate land Gat No.293 instead of Gat No.295 to be acquired. On 5th July, 2008, the said application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Commissioner.

6. According to the respondents, the petitioner thereafter made an application under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for offering an alternate land. The said application also came to be rejected. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not challenge the said order dated 5th July, 2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner or the order that was passed on the application under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner had made representations on 7th October, 2011, 18th April, 2012 and 31st August, 2012 before the authority. The petitioner received a letter from Talathi, Village Kapurhol, Taluka – Bhor, District – Pune on 24th November, 2011, calling upon the petitioner and other co-owners to submit proposal for exchange of land. On 13th January, 2012, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhor, addressed a letter to the Deputy Collector (Resettlement) and placed the proposal of the petitioner for exchange of land before the learned Deputy Collector. It is the case of the petitioner that the said representation made by the petitioner to the office of Talathi is not decided till date.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that he made a representation to the learned Additional Collector and learned Sub- Divisional Officer on 2nd June, 2016, 2nd November, 2016 and 22nd November, 2016, stating that in view of the dispute between the co-owne