IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7811 OF 2010 Chandrakant s/o Narharrao Shinde & anr. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...RESPONDENTS. ----- Shri S.J.Salunke, advocate for the petitioners. Shri S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents ----- CORAM : R.S.MOHITE AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 1st September, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 This is a petition filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents/authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of additional 43 Ares of land, situated in Gut No. 199 at village Ghatnandur, Taluka Ambajogai, District Beed and for passing of an award. 3 It is the allegation of the petitioners that the acquiring authorities have illegally taken possession of an additional area of 43 Ares of land from Gut No. 199. The record indicates that notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is restricted to 1 Hectare 30 Ares of land out of Gut No. 199. The grievance is made by the petitioners that the land of (2) which actual possession is taken is 1 Hectare and 73 Ares. In this background it is sought that 43 Ares of land should be acquired. 4 In our view, such a relief cannot be granted. The court cannot compel the authorities to acquire land which is not the subject matter of acquisition proceedings. 5 Alternative prayer made is for a direction to the respondents/authorities to consider and decide the objections raised by the petitioners on 29.5.2007 and 26.3.2008. It is submitted that these objections are raised under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The objections under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can only be raised in relation to the lands which are subject matter of acquisition proceedings and in respect of which notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been served upon the concerned land owners. 6 In our view, assuming that the land of the petitioners has been wrongly encroached upon, remedy of the petitioners lies in getting rid of encroachment by filing a suit. The prayers made by the petitioners in the present petition, in our view, cannot be entertained. 7 It may be mentioned that the petitioners relied upon Rulings of two Division Bench Judgments of this court; firstly in the case of Khushalrao Tulshiramjui Pandao and others vs State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary and others, reported at 2001 (Supp.) (3) Bom.C.R. 706 and in the case of Rupali Rambhau Khedkar and others vs State of Maharashtra and others, reported at 2003 (1) Bom.C.R. 105. We have perused both these judgments. The said judgments pertain to granting opportunity of hearing while raising of objections to acquisition. The judgments cited are totally irrelevant to the issue as raised in the petition, because the land in respect of which relief has been sought, had never been the subject matter of acquisition. 8 There is no substance in the petition. Therefore, the petition is summarily rejected. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ R.S.MOHITE, J.] dbm/wp7811.10