Delay and Laches: The Court held that a petition filed after an inordinate delay, without any justification, is barred by the principles of delay and laches. The petitioner’s failure to challenge the acquisition for 38 years amounted to acquiescence. (Paras 39-49)

Estoppel: The petitioner was estopped from challenging the acquisition, as his father had consented to it in 1968 and never raised any objections during his lifetime. (Paras 38, 44)

Lapsing of Acquisition: The Court held that the acquisition could not lapse under the MID Act, even if no compensation was paid or award passed, as the land had vested with the State in 1971. (Paras 55-57)

Abuse of Process of Law: The Court found that the petition was an abuse of the process of law, as the petitioner had used the pendency of the petition to gather materials and create a false narrative. (Paras 59-60)

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, holding that: The petition was barred by delay and laches, as the petitioner approached the Court 38 years after the acquisition. The petitioner’s father had consented to the acquisition in 1968, and no challenge was made during his lifetime. The acquisition could not be deemed to have lapsed due to non-payment of compensation or absence of an award, as the land had vested with the State in 1971. The petitioner’s claim of continued possession was untenable in light of the possession panchnama and revenue records.

Major Acts and Sections:

1. Constitution of India (COI), Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction of High Courts for enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights.

2. Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (MID Act) – Sections 31 to 36 – Acquisition and disposal of land, compensation, and appeals.

3. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) – Section 24(2) – Lapsing of acquisition proceedings.

Subjects:

Land acquisition – Delay and laches – Abuse of process of law – Estoppel – Consent terms – Possession panchnama – Compensation – Revenue records – Judicial review – Discretionary remedy.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation: The petitioner, Abhay V. Khinvasara, challenged the acquisition of his land (Survey No. 137/2, Akurdi, Pune) under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, which was acquired in 1971 and possession taken in 1972. The petition was filed in 2010, 38 years after the acquisition.

2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy?: The petitioner sought a declaration that the land was free from acquisition, quashing of revenue records showing the State as owner, and prohibition against further acquisition steps.

3. Reason for Filing the Case: The petitioner claimed he was unaware of the acquisition until he found the State’s name in the revenue records. He argued that no compensation was paid, and possession was never taken.

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now?: The petitioner’s father had earlier challenged the acquisition in 1966 but settled the matter through consent terms in 1968, agreeing to the acquisition of the land in question.

Issues:

1. Whether the petition was barred by delay and laches, given the 38-year gap between the acquisition and the filing of the petition?

2. Whether the petitioner could challenge the acquisition after his father had consented to it in 1968?

3. Whether the acquisition could be deemed to have lapsed due to non-payment of compensation or absence of an award?

4. Whether the petitioner’s claim of continued possession of the land was tenable in light of the possession panchnama and revenue records?

Submissions/Arguments:

1. Petitioner’s Arguments:

   • The petitioner argued that no compensation was paid, and no award was passed, hence the acquisition lapsed.

   • He claimed continuous possession of the land and disputed the possession panchnama.

   • Relied on Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah to argue that the acquisition was incomplete.

2. Respondents’ Arguments:

   • The State and MIDC contended that the petition was barred by delay and laches, as the acquisition was completed in 1971-72.

   • They argued that the petitioner’s father had consented to the acquisition in 1968 and never challenged it during his lifetime.

   • They relied on Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB v. Anasuya Bai to argue that the acquisition could not lapse under the MID Act.