Delay in seeking correction of a land acquisition award may not be substantial in the eyes of the law, and the court may dismiss a petition based on delay and laches.

JUDGMENT :

Y.G. Khobragade, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for quash and set aside impugned order dated 16.10.2020 passed by the Respondent No.3 Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Coordination, Beed, thereby rejected the application for correction in award dated 31.03.1978 in Case No. LAQ/SR/27/74. The petitioners also prayed for issuance of directions against the respondent No.2 to correct entries in the column of ownership of Statement-E of award dated 31.03.1978 by substituting names of the petitioners as owners of the land Survey No. 31/2A and 31/2B on the bass of judgment and decree dated 04.02.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Majalgaon District Beed in Regular Civil Suit No.161 of 2010.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, on 06.03.1975, Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette intending to acquire petitioners' land bearing Survey No. 31/2A and 31/2B. Thereafter, on 31.03.1978, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award, however, names of the petitioners did not figure in the column of 'names of owner' but it has been mentioned as 'title not decided'. The learned counsel further submitted that, initially, petitioners' father Shri Girmaji Gonde was owner of said land but on 03.09.1990 petitioners' father died and after death of their father, their names are recorded in the revenue record being legal heirs. Thereafter, on 09.03.2010, the petitioner approached respondent No.3 with a request to release the amount of compensation of Rs.575/- under the Award for acquisition of their land to the extent of 0.20 R. However, on 24.05.2010, the special land acquisition passed an order and held that title of the acquired land has not been decided and therefore the petitioners were directed to get the ownership to be decided from the competent Court for release of compensation in their favour. Therefore, the petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 161 of 2010 before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Majalgaon and prayed for declaration of ownership of acquired land and for release of payment of compensation. Accordingly, on conclusion of trial, the learned civil Judge Senior Division passed judgment and decree on 04.02.2011 and declared that the petitioners are joint owners of land which have been acquired by respondents out of Survey No. 31/A admeasuring 6 Acre 28 gunthas and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to pay compensation of Rs.575/- to the plaintiffs/petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Execution proceedings bearing Darkhast No. 32 of 2004 and the respondents have deposited compensation amount in execution proceedings, which the petitioners received.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that, on 22.06.2018, the petitioners submitted an application with respondent No.3 Sub Division Officer for correction in the Award and Statement -E, however, after hearing, respondent No.3 solicited guidance from respondent No.2-Collector, who opined that as per provisions of section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquisition authority can only correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award within six months from the date of declaration of award but the petitioners sought for correction of award after lapse of 40 years. However, the respondent No.3 did not decide their application. Therefore, the petitioners again made representation but the respondent No.3 issued communication dated 16.10.2020 and informed them that their application for correction entries in Statement-E in the Award dated 31.03.1978 cannot be entertained. Therefore, the petitioners prayed for issuance of directions against respondent No.2 to correct the