JUDGMENT :

Mangesh S. Patil, J.

Heard both the sides.

2. Before adverting to the arguments it would be appropriate to appreciate the facts.

(i) The petitioners’ land along with that of few others was reserved by the respondent No. 4-Municipal Council in its development plan for construction of a development plan road from Saligalli to Sidheshwar temple through the lands Survey Nos. 1, 126, 128, 129, 130 and 131. The total area to be acquired from all these lands was 1 to 1.14 Hectare. A proposal for acquisition was submitted by the Chief Officer of the respondent No. 4 - Municipal Council to the Collector Latur-respondent No. 2 on 20.03.1990. Necessary notification under Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter ‘the M.R.T.P. Act’) read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) was issued on 19.12.1991 and the final award was passed under Section 11 of the Act by the Special Land Acquisition Officer – respondent No. 3 on 29.12.1994.

(ii) The possession of the land was already taken by way of private negotiations on 08.03.1994. Pursuant to the award a demand for total amount of compensation of Rs.90,52,045/- was raised with the respondent No. 4-Municipal Council on 22.02.1995.

(iii) The respondent No. 4-Municipal Council preferred an application in Writ Petition No. 419/1997 filed by one of the land owners which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 3-Special Land Acquisition Officer to decide the matter and declare an award with or without modification of the compensation but by extending an opportunity to the respondent No. 4-Municipal Council of being heard and in the light of the decision in the matter of U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Pratisthan Vs. Gyandevi and others; AIR 1995 SC 724.

(iv) As per the affidavits in replies filed by the respondent No. 2-Collector and the respondent No. 3-Special Land Acquisition Officer, pursuant to the directions of this Court a notice was issued to the respondent No. 4-Municipal Council but it did not appear and the award was declared without any modification.

(v) The petitioners claim that in spite of having taken over possession of the land and passing of the award, not once but twice, the respondent No. 4-Municipal Council failed to make any deposit with the respondent No. 3 - Special Land Acquisition Officer and consequently he could not issue a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act to the petitioners.

(vi) The present writ petition was filed in the year 2009 claiming that for want of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act and in spite of possession having taken long back without paying a farthing to the petitioners by way of compensation their right to property enshrined under article 300A of the Constitution of India has been trampled down. Consequently they are claiming that the award stands lapsed by virtue of Section 11-A of the Act. Following are prayers :

“(C) To direct the respondent No. 3 to issue fresh declaration u/sec. 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 r/w section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and to pass award within 3 months from today and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

In the alternate

(D) To declare and hold that the declaration u/section 126 (4) of M.R.T.P. r/w section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued by the respondents is illegal and the same be quashed and set aside.

(E) To direct the respondents to declare award and issue notice u/section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and to pay compensation along with interest within a period of 3 months from today and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

(F) To direct the respondents to deposit 80% of the compensation along with interest as per the award prepared in this Honble Court with liberty to the petitioners to withdraw the same during pendency of final disposal of this writ petition.

(G) To grant any other just and equitable relief to which the petitioners found entitled be granted”.

3. The learned advocate Mr. K