2026:BHC-AS:3458-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15016 OF 2022 Parshuram Shivram Shitole and Ors. .. Petitioners V/s.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer .. Respondents No.17 And Ors -------------------

Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande with Anjali Shinde, Rachana Harpale and Santosh Kurade, for Petitioner.

Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP, for the State.

--------------------

Digitally signed by CORAM : MANISH PITALE &

VARSHA VARSHA DEEPAK DEEPAK GAIKWAD SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

GAIKWADDate:

2026.01.23 14:45:21 +0530 DATE : 22ND JANUARY 2026.

PC:

1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned AGP for the Respondent-State Authorities.

2. The Petitioners herein are seeking relief of quashing of land acquisition award dated 7^th May 2012, on the basis that the entire land acquisition proceeding culminating into the said award itself lapsed by the operation of law.

3. Reliance is placed on Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to contend that in the facts of the present case, two year period from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act had already lapsed before the award was passed.

4. In order to support the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners referred to the contents of the award. It was submitted that the award itself records that the last date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act was 2^nd May 2010 in the Talathi office. The two year period for passing the award expired on 1^st May 2012 and admittedly the award was passed on 7^th May 2012, after the two year period expired. It was further submitted that in the present case, there was no interim stay to the acquisition proceeding by order of any Court and therefore, the explanation to Section 11-A of the said Act does not apply and on this ground itself the Petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Since the Respondents, in their reply affidavits, relied upon a document purportedly issued by the Talathi stating that the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was published on the Chawdi on 12^th May 2010, we had requested the learned AGP to bring the original file to understand the true nature of the aforesaid document.

6. Learned AGP further submitted that in the present case, apart from placing reliance on the said document, this Court ought not to entertain the present writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. It is submitted that the award was passed way back on 7^th May

2012, while the Writ Petition was filed in May 2021.

7. Reliance was placed on the Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Motilal Agarwal and Ors¹ to contend that in similar circumstances when the

1 (2011) 5 SCC 394 original Petitioner before the High Court in the said case had invoked writ jurisdiction after about nine years, claiming lapsing of acquisition under Section 11A of the said Act, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was in error in entertaining the Writ Petition. The order of the High Court was set aside and the Writ Petition was dismissed. It was further submitted that this Court may follow the same course of action.

8. Another contention was raised by the learned AGP in the present case that the beneficiary of the acquisition i.e. the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department was not made a party and therefore, the Petition ought not to be entertained.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in support of the petition invited attention of this Court to a judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘Mrs. Sumitra Shridhar Khane Vs. The Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition No. 12’², to contend that in the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court reiterated the importance of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India pertaining to the right to property of individuals and in that context further stated that the question of delay was irrelevant.

10. It was submitted that this Court may allow the