Rajendrakumar Motilalsa Sawaji ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10191 Bom

                                      1                908-WP.5680-20.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     908 WRIT PETITION NO.5680 OF 2020

          RAJENDRAKUMAR MOTILALSA SAWAJI AND OTHERS
                            VERSUS
             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                    ...
              Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Deshmukh S.A.
      AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 6-State : Mr. S.R.Yadav-Lonikar.
                                   ...

                               CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, AND
                                       S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 03.08.2021

PER COURT :-

1. The learned advocate for the petitioners had sought time

to address the Court today after going through the reply of the

State. It is submitted that he seeks further time for going

through the reply and search out certain documents which the

petitioners would file in this Court after moving an application

requesting for leave to file such documents.

2. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that an

ad-interim order was passed by this Court, by which,

construction to the extent of twelve (12) meters width of the

road was permitted. Said activity is going on.

2 908-WP.5680-20.odt

3. We find that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in catena

of judgments that a public project should not be stalled by

interim orders of the Court and if the petitioners have any

right, which is impinged by the conduct of the acquiring body,

they would be entitled for compensation as is prescribed in

law.

4. The learned AGP submits that the road in the possession

of the State ever since 1960 onwards, was of 30 meters. So

also, by the introduction of Section 20-A (introduced by way of

an amendment) to the Specific Relief Act, injunction by a Court

in a suit involving a contract relating to an infrastructure

project specified in the schedule, is not to be granted, as it may

cause impediment or delay in the progress or completion of

such infrastructure project. The schedule below Section 20-A

indicates that roads and bridges are covered under

infrastructure projects.

5. In view of the above, we are listing this petition for

hearing on 27.08.2021. The respondents - authorities would

be at liberty to proceed with the project. We, however, make it

clear that if even an inch of land of the petitioners is consumed

3 908-WP.5680-20.odt

in the said project, they would stand legally entitled to

compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

...

vmk/-