Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and K.S. Paripoornan

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Bombay High Court dismissing the review petition filed by the appellant. The review petition was filed by the appellant against the order dismissing his writ petition by a Division Bench. The matter arises under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

3. By a notification dated November 29, 1979 issued under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 [the Act], two pieces of land were notified for acquisition for a public purpose, to wit, "for Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking for bus station". The two pieces of land notified are C.T.S. No. 218 admeasuring 1759 sq. mtrs. and C.T.S. No. 211 admeasuring 370 Sq. mtrs. The appellant claims to be the owner of C.T.S. No. 211. The declaration under Section 6 was made on December 16, 1982. C.T.S. No. 218 belongs to a Church but there are others who claim to have interest in the said land, viz., Vijayanand Singh and Gayatri Darshan Cooperative Housing Society. The BEST entered into a settlement with the said two persons whereunder an extent of 906 sq. mtrs. was given on a perpetual lease to BEST free of any charge, i.e., Re. 1 per annum. The lease deed executed by the said two persons in favour of the Bombay Municipal Corporation [representing BEST] is dated August 21, 1986. The remaining portion was to be utilised by the said persons for their own purposes including construction of a multi-storeyed complex for the employees of Bombay Municipal Corporation. Under the said settlement, the said two persons also agreed to construct a bus station, in the portion leased out to BEST, at their own cost and hand it over to be BEST free of cost. This settlement was brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer by the Additional Collector through his letter dated September 5, 1986. On September 18, 1986, the Land Acquisition Officer passed his ward wherein he referred to the aforesaid settlement brought to his notice and, on that basis, did not deal with or make any award of compensation with respect to C.T.S. No. 218. His award was confined only to C.T.S. No. 211. When the appellant came to know of the aforesaid facts, he addressed a letter to the authorities contending that exclusion of C.T.S. No. 218 from acquisition and passing the award only with respect to C.T.S. No. 211 was illegal, On November 10, 1986, he filed a writ petition challenging acquisition of C.T.S. No. 211 on various grounds. The writ petition was summarily dismissed by a learned Single Judge by his order dated December 8, 1986 against which the appellant preferred a writ appeal/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1858 of 1986. The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed and the writ petition restored to file. It came up for hearing before a Division Bench on June 15, 1995. On that day, the advocate for the appellant asked for an adjournment and on that being declined, reported "no instructions". The wr........