1. The present First Appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award rendered in Regular Civil Suit No.86/2000 by the Learned 5th Additional Sr. Civil Judge dated 21.03.2011 on the grounds stated in the memo of First Appeal inter alia that the notice as required under Section 45 of the Land Acquisition Act has not been served upon the appellants. It is also contended that the appellants are the purchasers of the land in question and though it is recorded, the order in Land Acquisition Reference No.7/1993 has been passed in collusion with the respondent no.3 and, therefore, the present Appeal may be allowed. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned judgment and award is in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard has been given to the appellants, who are the original owners and, therefore, the impugned award is illegal. It is contended that it is lawful for the Officer to publish notification and if such notification with the advertisement was published, the persons affected would have lodged the claim. It is contended that the present Appeal may be allowed.
2. Learned Sr. Counsel, Mr.Nanavati has filed reply in the Civil Application for condonation of delay explaining the delay. It has been submitted that the land in question has been acquired, for which, the possession was taken in the year 1994 and the Land Acquisition Reference No.7/1993 was going on to the knowledge of the present appellants and though the appellants claim to be subsequent purchasers, they have not taken any steps to make entry mutated in their favour till 2000. Further even thereafter for the first time, Suit is filed in 2000, which would be even otherwise time barred. He, therefore, submitted that as observed by the Court below, the procedure as required under the Law has been followed and as there was no objection received, the proceedings have attained the finality and, therefore, the Suit filed by the appellants herein has been dismissed. Learned Sr. Counsel, Mr.Nanavati submitted that the present Appeal may not be entertained. He pointedly referred to the observations made in the impugned judgment of the Court below that the possession was with the appellants cannot be believed. It is specifically observed that the respondent nos.1 and 3 have taken over the possession in 1994 as reflected from the record. He, therefore, emphasized that the Court below has rightly observed that though the land was purchased by the appellant in 1994, why the entry was not mutated thereafter and he has not shown any diligence and remained negligence.
3. As it transpires from the record that the possession has been taken over after the one month from the date of award in L.A.Q Case No.8/1993, whereas the date of sale deed is 04.05.1990. Therefore, if the land in question was purchased by the appellants by registered sale deed in the year 1990, there is no explanation why no step has been taken with regard to the necessary entry or the mutation in the name of the appellants till the proceedings started in 1994 or even thereafter when the possession was taken from the original owners in 1994, why the appellants remained silent till 2000 and when they filed Suit for the first time, there is no explanation on this aspect. In fact, the say of the appellants that they were not aware and only when he came to know about it, they filed Suit in the year 2000 cannot be readily accepted. When the person purchases the land by registered sale deed, normal consequence with common approach of the buyer would be to take the possession at the time of execution of the sale deed and in that case, the possession would have been with the appellants and not with the original owner. Not only that, some efforts would have been made to make the mutation entry in the name of the owners, which is also not pointed out. It is in these circumstances, the say of the appellant based on registered sale deed that he has not been heard though he was the owner, cannot be permitted to be raised after such lapse of time. Apart from, assuming that he had any interest, the fact remains that the land has been acquired and pursuant to the award, the possession has been taken within one month way back in 1994, for which, the amount has already been deposited with the Court below. Therefore, the obligation has been discharged by the respondent for whom the land has been acquired. Therefore, this Appeal cannot be entertained only on this short ground of delay and also laches. Further, assuming that the appellant has say in the matter or having right, title or interest in the land, which would entitle him for the share in compensation deposited with the Reference Court, it will be in the fitness of things that he can approach the Court below for raising any objections with regard to the disbursement lodging the claims for disbursement of the amount, which has been deposited.
4. With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed.
5. In view of the dismissal of main First Appeal, Civil Application for stay does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)
/patil