JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the land acquisition proceedings in respect of 2 hectares 53 ares land from S. No. 194/4 (Block No. 342) of village Nighoj, Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar have been brought in question by the petitioner who claims to be one of the co-sharers in the said land. 2. The petitioner states that the subject land was owned by his grand father by name Vithu S/o Keru Rasal, and on his demise in October 1976, the land was mutated in the name of the petitioner's father i.e. Sona S/o Vithoba Rasal, as per the mutation entry dated 21-1-1977 which was certified on 23-2-1977. It is admitted by the petitioner that the total family land holding of his grand father came to 9 hectares 64 ares spread over 5 different survey numbers namely S. No. 196/1 admeasuring 2 hectares 22 ares, S. No. 167/1 admeasuring 4 hectares 19 ares, S. No. 194/4 admeasuring 2 hectares 56 acres, S. No. 197/7 admeasuring 56 ares and S. No. 196/6 admeasuring 11 ares of village Nighoj, Taluka Parner. The State Government decided to acquire lands from Noghoj village for project affected persons from the benefited zone of Kukdi Project and therefore, a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be published in the Government Gazette dated 30-10-1975 in respect of various lands from the said village. So far as the petitioner's grand father's land was concerned, the notice under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, confined only to land admeasuring 2 hectares 93 ares from S. No. 167/1. This notification was dated 18th October, 1975 though, it was published in the Gazette on 30th October, 1975. As per the certificate issued by the concerned village Panchayat, the original land owner i.e. Vithu @ Vithoba expired on 17-10-1976 and therefore, the entire family land holding was mutated in the name of Sona Vithoba who was the only son of Vithoba Rasal. The village form No. 6 as brought on record shows that the family land holding was located in S. No. 197/1, 196/6-A (part), 167/1, 194/4, 196/5, 196/6B-6C-6D (2/3rd). 3. The petitioner contends that he received notice on 25-3-1988, issued under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, for taking over possession and the said notice was replied by him on 10-4-1988 through his Advocate. 3. The petitioner contends that he received notice on 25-3-1988, issued under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, for taking over possession and the said notice was replied by him on 10-4-1988 through his Advocate. It was stated in the said reply that the acquisition proceedings originally initiated were in respect of the land in S. No. 167/1 and there were no proceedings initiated in respect of the land acquired from S. No. 194/4, the petitioner's grand father had agreed for acquisition of land upto 1 acre from S. No. 167/1 and as this was by consent, authorities had dropped acquisition proceedings in respect of the land beyond one acres and therefore, the fresh proceedings initiated for acquisition of land from S. No. 194/4 were illegal. It is also stated that sometimes in 1979, the petitioner's father distributed the total land holding amongst four shares namely the father and three sons (Sonba father, Shantaram, Gitaram and Ramdas's brother) as well as the petitioner and thus total of 2 hectares and 10 ares of the land came to his share, as a result of the said partition. His holding was located in three survey numbers namely S. No. 167/1, 197/1, 194/1 admeasuring 5 acres and 10 gunthas which was below 8 acres of his individual holding and could not be acquired under the provisions of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Displaced Persons Act, 1976. 4. While granting Rule, this Court had also granted interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (c) by order dated 16-6-1988, and thereby the petitioners possession over the subject land was protected till the disposal of this petition though, the respondents contend that expert possession was taken over on 8-4-1988 by drawing panchanama. 5. The Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 14, Ahmednagar has filed return and opposed the petition. It is stated that on receipt of the notice under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner's father appeared in the enquiry conducted under section 5-A of the said Act and stated that the land admeasuring 2 hectares 93 ares as was sought to be acquired from S. No. 167/1 was a Bagayat land and therefore, he was willing to surrender land from other survey numbers. In this regard he had offered entire land in S. No. 194/4 and further stated that balance land could be taken from S. No. 167/1. In this regard he had offered entire land in S. No. 194/4 and further stated that balance land could be taken from S. No. 167/1. This proposition was accepted and declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 23-5-1977 came to be published in Gazette dated 16-6-1977. It was shown in the said declaration that land admeasuring 40 ares out of S. No. 167/1 was sought to be acquired and acquisition in respect of balance land admeasuring 2 hectares 53 ares from the said survey number was abandoned. The Land Acquisition Officer therefore, issued fresh notice under section 4 of the Act on the petitioner on 29-8-1977 for acquisition of land admeasuring 2 hectares 53 ares from S. No. 194/4. Declaration under section 6 dated 13-3-1980 came to be published in the Government Gazette on 20-3-1988, alongwith other lands under acquisition. There is no dispute that the entire holding in S. No. 194/4 in the name of the petitioner's grand father was 2 hectares 53 ares and the entire holding was sought to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award on 30-4-1982 in respect of all the lands including 194/4 belonging to the petitioner's family. At the same time, award in respect of 40 ares land from S. No. 167/1 was passed on 20-10-1978 about which there is no dispute in this petition. On 19-5-1982, Sona Vithoba submitted an application to the Collector and Resettlement Officer, Ahmednagar stating that he did not require the compensation amount Rs. 6,400=90 in respect of the land admeasuring 2 hectares 53 ares from S. No. 194/4 and land admeasuring 6 acres from S. No. 197/1 as well as 194/4 was sold by him to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee and if the subject land was finally taken over, no other source of livelihood would be available to his family. This representation does show that Sona Vithoba was aware of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 30-4-1982 and perhaps, he had also received notice under section 9(3), (4) of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. The representation specifically mentions about the compensation amount payable to him and that by itself is eloquent enough to infer the petitioner's father's knowledge to the acquisition proceedings having been culminated into an award. 6. The representation specifically mentions about the compensation amount payable to him and that by itself is eloquent enough to infer the petitioner's father's knowledge to the acquisition proceedings having been culminated into an award. In the case of (Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another v. Shah Hyder Baig and others)1, 2000(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)678, the Supreme Court in para 17 held : "In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court and in one of recent cases (C. Padma v. Dy. Secretary to the Government of T.N.)2, reported in 1997(2) S.C.C. 627 ." Shri Chopda, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and others v. M/s. Godrej and Boyce)3, A.I.R. 1987 Supreme Court 2421 to contend that the petitioner has the right to challenge the acquisition proceeding even after the Award was passed. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce (supra) inter alia states that the State Government's right to pass order for deletion under section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is protected till the possession of the subject land under acquisition is with the land owner and the State Government cannot be forced to acquire the land though included in the acquisition proceedings, when it is noticed that the subject land is encroached upon or has become impossible for taking over possession. Reliance of the learned Counsel on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Godrej and Boyce is therefore, totally misplaced. In the instant case the award has been passed on 30-4-1982. The petitioner got knowledge of the said award sometimes in May 1982 and the petitioner has approached this Court on 15-4-1988 on the pretext that he received notice dated 25-3-1988 under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, giving a reason for him to approach us. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar is squarely applicable to the instant cases as well and therefore, the petition cannot be entertained challenging the acquisition proceedings after the Award dated 3-4-1982 was passed. 7. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar is squarely applicable to the instant cases as well and therefore, the petition cannot be entertained challenging the acquisition proceedings after the Award dated 3-4-1982 was passed. 7. Even otherwise, we have verified from the original record as submitted before us that in the enquiry proceedings under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner's grand father Vithoba appeared and requested to Shift the acquisition to S. No. 194/4 to the extent of his holding and the balance land to be taken from S. No. 167/1. This was duly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and specific order has been passed on 21-12-1976 in the following words: ^^vtZnkjkus l-u- 167@1 P;k ,soth l-u- 194@4 ?;kok vls lqpkoys vkgs l-u- 194@4 gk 6-12 xqaVs vkgs o vkiY;kyk 7-10 xqaVs tehu ?;ko;kph vkgs rsOgk vtZnkjkph [kyhy tehu laiknu djkoh l-u- 194@4] 167@1 iSdh 6-10] 1-00 iksV [kjkc lksMwu-^^ Though, the order was passed on 29-12-1976 when Vithoba was on more, the fact remains that the proceedings do indicate his participation in the enquiry under section 5-A and his request which was noted down in the proceeding was considered and accepted by the order which was passed after his demise. Fresh notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued accordingly in respect of the acquisition from S. No. 194/4 for land admeasuring 2 hectares 43 ares, declaration under section 6 was also published and award was passed finally on 30-4-1982. The notice under section 4(1) has been served on the petitioner's father on 29-8-1977 as is evident from the record submitted before us. We are therefore, satisfied that there are no procedural infirmities in the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land from S. No. 194/4. 8. The petitioner's next defence is regarding the partition in 1979 and the land having been acquired in excess of the slabs as set out in Schedule A of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (Resettlement Act for short). The learned Counsel for the petitioner at the first instance relies upon the provisions of Resettlement Act and in the next breach he submitted that the acquisition proceedings could not be considered qua the provisions of the said Act. We are not impressed by these submissions. The learned Counsel for the petitioner at the first instance relies upon the provisions of Resettlement Act and in the next breach he submitted that the acquisition proceedings could not be considered qua the provisions of the said Act. We are not impressed by these submissions. The Government of Maharashtra issued notification under section 11 of the Resettlement Act, on 24-11-1978 and amongst the villages from Parner Tahsil listed in the notification, village Nighoj is at Serial No. 14. This notification has been gazetted. Section 12 of the Resettlement Act, inter alia, debars partitions of agricultural land except with the permission in writing from the State Government/competent authority, after the notification under section 11 of the said Act is issued. We have no doubt to hold that the subject land is covered by the notification issued on 24-11-1978 and therefore, the provisions of section 12 of the Resettlement Act, come into play. It is for these reasons that the entire land holding in the name of Sona S/o Vithoba Rasal, will have to be considered by us. 9. Alongwith the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, xerox copy of the extract of slab register has been brought on record in respect of the total land holding in Vithoba Keru Rasal. However, the said document cannot be relied upon if we compare the contents therein with the entries made in village form 8-A Register and as per the said register the total land holding of Vithu at the relevant time when the notification under section 4(1) was issued on 25-10-1976 came to 9 hectares 74 ares (25 acres 4 gunthas). Part II of the Schedule A to the Resettlement Act provides that in case of the total land holding being in excess of 24 acres, balance of land in excess of 19 acres can be acquired. If this slab is made applicable to the petitioner's case, it is evident that in all 6 acres 4 gunthas land could be acquired. One acre land was already acquired from S. No. 167/1 and the balance land that could be acquired remained only 5 acres 4 gunthas (2 hectares 4 ares). It was therefore, not permissible to acquire 2 hectares 53 ares land and the acquisition beyond 2 hectares 4 ares cannot be upheld. One acre land was already acquired from S. No. 167/1 and the balance land that could be acquired remained only 5 acres 4 gunthas (2 hectares 4 ares). It was therefore, not permissible to acquire 2 hectares 53 ares land and the acquisition beyond 2 hectares 4 ares cannot be upheld. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of (Ganpat Balwant Pawar and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 7, Krishna Dhom Project, Wai, Dist. Satara)4, 1984(2) Bom.C.R. 166 . The decision does not support the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and in fact, the said decision confirms our view that the bar under section 12 of the Resettlement Act is applicable in the instant case as well. 10. As the land was sought to be acquired for the purposes of resettlement and the provisions of the Resettlement Act, are applicable to the subject land as well, we have examined the slab under Schedule A (Part II). We have examined the correctness of the quantum of acquisition and we therefore, hold that the respondents-authorities were entitled for acquisition of 5 acres 4 gunthas land instead of 6 acres 13 gunthas land from section No. 194/4. We therefore, uphold the acquisition to the extent of 5 acres 4 gunthas and set aside the acquisition of balance land admeasuring 1 acre 9 gunthas. 11. We are also mindful of the fact that pursuant to the stay order granted by this Court, the petitioner has been in possession of the subject land alongwith the co-sharers, if any, and therefore, he has the right to approach the competent authority by filing an application under section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, praying for deletion of the subject land from the acquisition. He may agitate all the issues that he has raised in the petition namely, the marginal land holding, taking away the source of livelihood as well as the non-existence of the resettlement use with the passage of time and these grounds are required to be considered by the competent authority if the petitioner files such an application. It would also be in the interest of justice that if such an application is filed, it ought to be decided expeditiously and within a fixed period. 12. It would also be in the interest of justice that if such an application is filed, it ought to be decided expeditiously and within a fixed period. 12. In the result, we partly allow the petition and hold that the acquisition of land from S. No. 194/4 of village Nighoj, Taluka Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar, to the extent of 1 acre 9 gunthas is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Resettlement Act and therefore, the said acquisition is hereby quashed and set aside. We also hold that the acquisition to the extent of 5 acres 4 gunthas is legal and valid. These findings will not preclude the petitioner from filing an application under section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, before the competent authority and if such an application is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible and in any case within two months from its presentation on its own merits and after hearing the petitioner and in the meanwhile, the interim order passed by this Court shall continue to operate. 13. Rule made absolute in terms of the above order. No costs. 14. Certified copy expedited. Petition allowed. -----