907 WRIT PETITION NO. 1837 OF 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 907 WRIT PETITION NO. 1837 OF 2020 RAOSAHEB VITHAL VANVE DIED THROUGH LRS RAHIBAI RAOSAHEB VANVE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS … Adv. Naikwade Shivaji K. for the Petitioner Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for State … CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 02.04.2026 P E R C O U R T : 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs : “A] This writ petition may kindly be allowed. B] By issuing the writ of mandamus or any other writ in the like nature, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be directed to the respondent authorities, to measure the land in gat no. 106 of the petitioner situated at village Bordevi Tanda, Tq. and Dist. Beed acquired for the construction of Mhalasjawala-Pimpalner-Surdi road in Tq. and Beed District. C] Any other equitable and suitable relief in favour of the petitioner may kindly be granted.” 2. Affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent – Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is a matter of record that possession of the petitioner’s land was taken in the month of August 1979, and thereafter, by following the due procedure of law, an award came to be passed on 22.02.1989 by the ksk/ 1/2 2026:BHC-AUG:14444-DB 907 WRIT PETITION NO. 1837 OF 2020 Land Acquisition Officer. Prior to the acquisition, a joint measurement was carried out. Notification under Section 4 was published in the Government Gazette on 27.02.1986 and under Section 6 on 09.04.1987. On the basis of the said notifications, an area admeasuring 0.24 R from Gat No. 106 came to be acquired. 3. After declaration of the final award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 22.02.1989, notice under Section 9(3) of the Act was issued to all interested persons. However, the petitioner did not file any claim in response to the said notice. Thereafter, notice under Section 12(2) was issued on 23.05.1990; however, the petitioner neither accepted the compensation nor raised any objection and/or filed a reference. 4. In this view of the matter, since the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of more than 30 years, we are not inclined to entertain the petition on the ground of inordinate delay and latches. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] ksk/ 2/2