In the year 1973, the Revenue and Forest Department of the Maharashtra Government passed a resolution inter alia deciding to take steps in respect of surplus acquired land which remained unutilized for a period of three years from the date of taking over possession for resumption of such lands in accordance with the applicable rules and orders.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows In the year 1971 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation in short MIDC acquired about 1250 acres of agricultural land situated at four villages in Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra.
In the year 1982, appellant claims to have made representations alongwith similarly situated land owners for restoration of the acquired land to the original owners.
It is the stand of the appellant that out of the acquired area, about 50 was under paddy cultivation and 25 was under cultivation of mango crops.
On 20.7.1989 a Committee was appointed by the Legislative Assembly for companysideration of the proposal for handing back the acquired land to the original owners.
In 1974, a Writ Petition was filed by the appellant challenging the Notification for acquisition and an arrangement was worked out in which 20 acres of appellants land out of 38 acres were released.
It was the specific stand of the appellant that in view of Section 39 2a of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 in short the Act the land should be restored.
In the year 1983, companypensation was paid to 686 land owners.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it was highly belated.
Since Balco did number set up any unit, license issued to it was cancelled.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant on the ground that it was highly belated.
On 20.8.1992 the land acquired for Balco was allotted to another industrial group.
On 12.11.2002, representations were again made to hand back the land number utilized.
Subsequently, the State Government asked the industrial group number to companytinue the companystruction activities in view of pendency of cases.
In the appellants land about 175 mango trees were there.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant stated that the appellant was all through representing to the authorities and because of the recommendations by the Committee, the appellant waited for some time and ultimately when numberworthwhile action was taken, he filed the writ petition.
In 1984, again the appellant made a representation to the Collector of Ratnagiri for release of the land.
Thirty eight acres of land belonging to the appellant were acquired.
companypany Balco for setting up a manufacturing unit.
It is pointed out that the recommendations made in terms of the resolution were number accepted by the Government.
It also numbered that the appellant had received companypensation in respect of the land which was acquired.
The lands were acquired for a Govt.
Certain recommendations were made by the said Committee.
Learned companynsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court.
