ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. This appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition NO.5312 of 2017. 4. The matter arises out of land acquisition proceedings initiated vide Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) on 18.12.2008. After necessary processes under the Act were complied with, a declaration under Section 6 was issued on 04.11.2009 which was followed by passing of an Award on 04.11.2011. Various pieces of land were acquired at the instance of Railways for laying a railway line between Parali and Ahmednagar which was to passthrough town of Beed in Maharashtra. 5. The documents on record indicate that after the passing of award, the compensation as determined in terms of the award was deposited and one tranche of compensation in the sum of Rs.4,59,108/- was deposited in relation to acquisition of Survey No.68, admeasuring 1.17 hectares of land. That piece of land was standing in the name of "Sudamati Vishwanath Prabhale & Others" as per the entries in the Revenue Record. 6. Almost five years later, the present writ petition was filed by the respondents herein, submitting inter alia; (a) The entry in the Revenue Records in the name of "Sudamati Vishwanath Prabhale & Others" was a generic entry and there were many holders whose holdings were consolidated and dealt with in that single entry. (b) The vendors of the respondents named; (1) Sayyad Badshaha Sayyad Gulam, (2) Momd. Anisoddin Momd. Alimoddin, (3) Nisar Ahemad Gul Ahemad, (4) Mr. Dagdu Ramji Mote, (5) Mr. Bhaskar Tukaram Maske & (6) Mr. Dinakar Trimbakrao Nagare were holding about 2 hectares and 68 R's. (c) However, the land held by said vendors was marked in Revenue Records under the name of "Sudamati Vishwanath Prabhale & Others". (d) At no stage, any intimation or notice was issued to the vendors of the respondents and as such there was no participation on their part in the proceedings for acquisition. (e) In the year 2015, possession in furtherance of the proceedings in acquisition was sought to be taken and that's when it was realized that the entire proceedings had gone on without said vendors being put to notice at any stage. 7. (e) In the year 2015, possession in furtherance of the proceedings in acquisition was sought to be taken and that's when it was realized that the entire proceedings had gone on without said vendors being put to notice at any stage. 7. In the affidavit in response filed on behalf of the Railways, Ahmadnagar, it was asserted that: "......5. I say and submit that, the owner of Land Block He.68 admeasuring 1 H & 17 R as per the record is "Sudamati Vishwanath Prabhale & Others" as per the 7/12 Extract. That, as has been alleged by the petitioner that, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act is not followed is denied in toto Thai, the procedure prescribed under said Act is followed. It is made clear that, the deponents are the acquiring body and local procedure followed under the Land Acquisition Act is by the State Government Authorities i.e. Respondent Nos. 5 to 9. That, as per the demand raised by said Respondents the amount is deposited by the deponents into the account of said Respondents. 6. I say and submit that, it is the allegation of the petitioner that, he has purchased Land Block No. 68/69 on 30.1.2009 through Registered Sale Deed No. 68/69 on 30.01.2009 through Registered Sale Deed No.293/2010 from one Sayyad Badshah Sayyad Gulab. That, after going going through the 7/12 Extract annexed at Page No.23 of the petition, it reveals that, there are various Mutation Entries appearing. It is the duty of the Respondent-State Authorities to verify the same and take action. That, vide Mutation Entry No.3411 dated 25.12.2015 alongwith other Gut Numbers, Gut No. 68 standing in the name of Sudamati Vishwanath & Others was acquired. The Copy of relevant Pherfar i.e. Mutation Entry Register is hereto annexed and marked as Annexure-R-1. 7. I say and submit that, after going through the Mutation Entries, nowhere the name of partner is reflecting and as such, whatever representations are made by the petitioner to the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 are after the Notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and as such the petitioner cannot have any right to raise an issue of non-payment of Compensation amount under Award as the owner of acquired land stood in the name of Sudamati Vishwanath." 8. In the affidavit in rejoinder, it was submitted by the respondent submitted as under: "3. In the affidavit in rejoinder, it was submitted by the respondent submitted as under: "3. I say and submit that the contention of Respondent No.1 to 4 in para 7 that name of petitioner does not appear in 'Ferfar' is totally false. Page-15 'Ferfar' entry which is to the knowledge of respondent Mr. Bhushan as he referred to it in para 9 though its date is quoted wrongly. Even in 'Ferfar' 'Nond-vahi' page no.34 filed by respondent no.1 to 4 Serial No.5 is referred as per 7/12 extract. The 7/12 extract clearly has entry of my name at page no.23." 9. Thus, the issue of locus of the respondents to maintain an action and especially after lapse of five years of the passing of the Award was squarely raised.10. The matter concerning the issue of locus was considered by the High Court in Paragraph 20 as under: "20. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of K.N. Aswattnaryana Setty v/s State of Karnataka (2014) 15 SCC 394 , that if a person purchases land after issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, he would be entitled to compensation for acquisition as he enters the, shoes of the erstwhile owner. This further demonstrates that the objection raised on behalf of the respondents is untenable." The High Court, thereafter, concluded that the vendors of the respondents were entitled to be noticed about the proceedings in acquisition and since there was a serious flaw on that count, the relief could be moulded by directing that the compensation at the rate prevailing when the possession was sought to be taken over by the Railways, be made over to the respondents. 11. The view taken by the High Court is presently under challenge. 12. Instead of going into the other issues which weighed with the High Court, in our view, the basic issue that arises is with regard to the locus of the respondents. 13. We have heard Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned ASG for the appellants and Mr. Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents. 14. We have gone through the concerned record including the entries in the Revenue Record and the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the respondents. 13. We have heard Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned ASG for the appellants and Mr. Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents. 14. We have gone through the concerned record including the entries in the Revenue Record and the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the respondents. Said Deed does not record in any manner how the title was derived by the vendors of the respondents nor does it give any indication whether the holding of said vendors was in any way recorded at any stage, in any governmental or public record. The consideration paid under the document was also in cash. Further, the entries of Revenue Record placed before us do not indicate that the names of the vendors and the respondent were entered into revenue record at any point in time. 15. All that is being submitted on behalf of the respondents is that the expression "Sudamati Vishwanath Prabhale & Others" was loosely worded and that all the other holders of land were not individually named and their holding was not specified separately in the Revenue Records. 16. Going by the strength of material on record, we are not at all satisfied about the claim raised by the respondents that they validly purchased a piece of land under acquisition. Moreover, the purchase itself was after the initiation of proceedings in acquisition. 17. We are not satisfied about the status and locus of the respondents to maintain a writ petition and more particularly after five years from the passing of the award. 18. We therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the view taken by the High Court and dismiss the writ petition on the ground of locus. No costs.