18. The respondent State, on the other hand, would urge that the writ petition filed by the appellants was hopelessly delayed and suffered from laches. The possession of the suit land was taken under the possession panchnama dated 20-3-1986. That fact was within the knowledge of the appellants as is evident from the record and in particular from the stand taken by the respondent State to oppose review application in relation to application under Section 21 of the 1976 Act. It was clearly stated by the respondent in the said proceedings that the appellants were not entitled for any relief as possession has already been taken on 20-3-1986 and that the subject land had already vested in the State. Thus, it was within the knowledge of the appellants being party to the said proceedings. That fact has been recorded in the order dated 19-9-1998 in review application while remanding the application (under Section 21) for reconsideration by the competent authority. The present writ petition, however, has been filed only in 2001 without disclosing any cause for such delay and laches, much less plausible explanation. The Division Bench of the High Court was, therefore, justified in non-suiting the appellants including on the ground of delay and laches in filing of the writ petition. That finding is unexceptionable. It is urged that before taking possession vide possession panchnama dated 20-3-1986, notices were duly issued to the landowners under Section 10(5) of the 1976 Act. The first notice was issued on 17-12-1985 to Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel, Bhikhabhai Maganbhai Patel, Natvarbhai Bhailalbhai Patel and Jayantibhai Babarbhai Patel. This was duly served. The second notice dated 23-1-1986 was also issued to Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel, Bhikhabhai Maganbhai Patel, Natvarbhai Bhailalbhai Patel and Jayantibhai Babarbhai Patel. The second notice sent to Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel was returned with endorsement “said owner has expired”. However, the other noticees— Bhikhabhai Maganbhai Patel, Natvarbhai Bhailalbhai Patel and Jayantibhai Babarbhai were duly served with the second notice and their acknowledgments have been produced on record. Despite those notices, the appellants concerned failed to remain present for handing over the possession on the specified date. Therefore, after waiting for 30 days' period, the authority proceeded to take forcible possession on 20-3-1986 vide possession panchnama. That is permissible in law and was the only course open to the
