The court ruled that inordinate delay and lack of diligence by petitioners preclude the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in land acquisition matters.

JUDGMENT :

Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.

1. Rule. The Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith, and the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2. This Petition, filed in 2018, is essentially a challenge to an order passed by the Respondent No. 2, Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, in January 2006[Originally, the prayer in Paragraph 30(b) of the Petition referred to this order as being passed in June 2006, while the amended and added prayer at Paragraph 30(bb) provides a date of February, 2006. However, the order, appended before and after the Petition was amended to bring on record documents received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, shows the typed date simply as January 2006 (without a date) but it appears to have been signed on February 8, 2006.], rejecting a revision application filed by the Petitioners under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Land Acquisition Act”). The primary prayer in this Petition was for a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed by reason of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”). However, it has been fairly stated that this prayer is not being pressed by reason of the law declared on the subject by the Supreme Court. Instead, the Petitioners seek a declaration that the acquisition was illegal owing to wrong computation of the agricultural land in their ownership.

3. The matter at hand has had a chequered history. Essentially, the matter involves land originally owned by one Mr. Babasaheb Khadirsaheb Pirjade, whose grandchildren are the four Petitioners in this Petition, namely, Mr. Nizamuddin Husainsaheb Pirjade, Mr. Lajam Badesaheb Pirjade, Mr. Molaali Badesaheb Pirjade and Mr. Shahanawaj Badesaheb Pirjade. According to the Petitioners, Mr. Babasaheb Khadirsaheb Pirjade’s total holding of agricultural land was about 10 hectares and 99 Ares.

4. Upon the demise of Mr. Babasaheb Khadirsaheb Pirjade on September 6, 1975, one son Mr. Husainsaheb Pirjade (the father of Petitioner No.1) is said to have come into possession of agricultural land admeasuring 5 Hectares and 54 Ares, whereas the other son Mr. Badesaheb Pirjade (father of Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4) received agricultural land admeasuring 5 Hectares and 45 Ares. After such partition, the fathers of the Petitioners started cultivating the land independently and their names were recorded in the village records by virtue of mutation entry No. 500 reflecting them as owners of the land as of January 9, 1976, as legal heirs of the late Mr. Babasaheb Khadirsaheb Pirjade.

5. According to the Petitioners, the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued a notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on March 16, 1985 declaring the intent of the Government to acquire the land bearing:

(i) Survey No. 42/5, admeasuring 83 Ares;

(ii) Survey No. 19/1, admeasuring 18 Ares; and

(iii) Survey No. 42/1, admeasuring 20 Ares.

6. On December 22, 1986, Mr. Husainsaheb Pirjade (father of Petitioner No.1) too passed away and Petitioner No.1 inherited his land. Meanwhile, the Petitioners’ representations about size of the agricultural land and their related objections to the acquisition did not find favour with the State and an Award dated March 3, 1988 came to be passed, fixing the compensation for the land so acquired. The Petitioners continued to make representations even after passing of the award, but to no avail.

7. According to the Petitioners, as of the date of issuance of the aforesaid notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, their respective fathers, namely, Mr. Husainsaheb Pirjade and Mr. Badesaheb Pirjade, the inheritors and sons of Mr. Babasaheb Khadirsaheb Pirjade, were alive. The Petitioners assert that their fathers submitted objections to the acquisition stating that almost 2 hectares of land possessed by each of them was not agricultural land since the lands were g