Vitthal Kisan Sonawane And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 447 Bom

                                                        W.P.No.11412/16
                                   1


                    IN THE HIGH COURT  AT BOMBAY
                APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    WRIT PETITION NO. 11412 OF 2016

1.     Vitthal s/o. Kisan Sonawane,
       Age 69 years, Occu. Agri.,

2.     Ekanath s/o. Pandurang Sonawane,
       Age 50 years, Occu. Agri.,

3.     Namdeo s/o. Kisan Sonawane,
       Age 52 years, Occu. Agri.,

4.     Revnath s/o. Babasaheb Sonawane,
       Age 45 years, Occu. Agri.,

5.     Rajaram s/o. Kharbhari Sonawane,
       Age 75 years, Occu. Agri.,

6.     Laxman s/o. Gajaba Landge,
       Age 76 years, Occu. Agri.,

7.     Ushabai Raosaheb Sonawane,
       Age 39 years, Occu. Agri.,

8.     Baburao s/o. Kisan Sonawane,
       Age 55 years, Occu. Agri.,

       All R/o. Bhadali, Tq. Vaijapur,
       Dist. Aurangabad.               ....Petitioners.

               Versus

1.     The State of Maharashtra
       Through the Secretary for
       Irrigation Department,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.     The District Collector,
       Aurangabad.

3.     The Deputy Collector,




 ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017             ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:44:29 :::
                                                              W.P.No.11412/16
                                        2


       (Land Acquisition),
       Jaikwadi Project, Aurangabad.

4.     The Executive Engineer,
       Minor Irrigation Department,
       Aurangabad.

5.     Taluka Inspector,
       Land Record Office,
       Vaijapur, Tq. Vaijapur,
       Dist. Aurangabad.                     ....Respondents.

Mr. N.D. Sonawane, Advocate for petitioners. 
Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 
5.
                                CORAM   :  T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                           SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

DATED : March 3, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By

consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

2) The petition is filed for giving direction

to start acquisition proceeding as per the provisions

of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Act, 2013 in respect of the land of the petitioners

and to pay even rental compensation to the

petitioners for the land used after taking over the

W.P.No.11412/16

possession from the year 2002 till the completion of

process of land acquisition.

3) The submissions made show that notification

under section 4 (1) of the Act was published on

13.3.2007, but no further steps were taken. The

learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

after completion of the dam, the land of the

petitioners got submerged in the water, but no

acquisition proceeding was started after the

publication of section 4(1) notification.

4) The learned A.G.P. today brought to the

notice of this Court that on 21.11.2016, the Sub

Divisional Officer of Jaikwadi Project wrote to the

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department,

Aurangabad and gave direction to see that the

acquisition proceeding is started as per the

aforesaid new law. It is specifically mentioned that

the previous process has lapsed. Thus, respondents

are not disputing that the proceeding needs to be

started as per the provisions of new law. If there is

W.P.No.11412/16

dispute with regard to the measurement, the land

needs to be measured and it should be mentioned as

against the names of the petitioners.

5) In the result, the petition is allowed.

Direction is given to start proceeding as per the

provisions of new law. The point of entitlement of

getting rental compensation is kept open.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

ssc/