Bombay High CourtWP/619/2019dismissedrule discharged

Shyamrao S/O Modaku Bhadade v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Nagpur And Another

2019-01-29Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp619.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.619/2019 Shyamrao S/o Modaku Bhadade ..Vs..

State of Maharashtra and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.R. Charpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.P. Deshpande, Addl. G.P. for respondents. CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATE : 29.1.2019.

Heard.

The petitioner had filed an application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act of 1894"). This application was dismissed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11th February, 2004 on the ground that the petitioner was estopped from seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 as he had accepted the amount of compensation. According to the petitioner, he had made oral protest at the time of accepting the amount of compensation and oral protest by the claimant is recognized, as held by this Court in the judgment given in the case of Amol Rambhau Arjun V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2000(4) Mh.L.J. 302. It is further submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer could not have refused to make reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. According to the petitioner, he was not

2 wp619.19 informed about the order dated 11th February, 2004. There is delay of abut 15 years. The petitioner has not been able to justify the inordinate delay and latches in making the grievance. In my view, it is not appropriate for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to examine the legality of the claim which at this stage is a stale claim. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE Tambaskar.