1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4404 OF 2009 1) Gunwant s/o Madhav Chavan, 2) Yuvraj s/o Daadu Chavan, 3) Dinkar s/o Venkat Chavan, 4) Keshav s/o Yadav Chavan, 5) Jeewan s/o Madhav Chavan, 6) Dashrath s/o Yadav Chavan, 7) Vasant s/o Babruvan Chavan, 8) Waman s/o Madhav Chavan, All R/o-Chincholi Son, Tq-Ausa, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Collector, Latur, Dist-Latur, 3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Swarna Project, Latur, Dist-Latur, 2 4) The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation (Local Sector), Central Building, Latur, Dist-Latur, 5) The Zilla Parishad, Latur, Through Executive Engineer, (M.I.), Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.V.V. Ingale Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. ... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. By this Petition, it is prayed that the Respondents be directed to conclude the 3 acquisition proceedings expeditiously and pay compensation to the Petitioners at the earliest. 3. The fact that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands bearing Gut numbers referred to in Paragraph 2 of the Petition, were commenced by issuance of Section 4 Notification is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the possession of the said lands has already been taken by the authority on 16th April, 2004. 4. The stand taken by the Respondents before this Court is that, initially the acquisition was proposed for construction of percolation tank, however, now that proposal has been dropped. Instead, Zilla Parishad is interested in taking over the said land. The fact that the earlier public purpose is no more in existence or that it has been changed or is likely to be changed, will make no difference to the fact situation of the present case, having regard to the admitted position that possession of the disputed land has 4 already been taken over on 16th April, 2004. 5. In such a case, the acquisition proceeding has to be taken to its logical end and cannot be dropped by the Collector who has proceeded to issue Section 4 Notification. That is the mandate of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. once the possession of any land has been taken over, it is not open to the Government to withdraw from acquisition proceedings. The fact that the acquiring body is likely to change, can be no ground to defer the process of determination of compensatiion. That ought to be followed in accordance with law for determination of compensation payable to the claimants/ land owners. 6. In our opinion, therefore, the Collector and the Special Land Acquisition Officer are obliged to continue the process of determination of compensation amount payable to the Petitioners and pass award in respect of the disputed land, which amount will have to be paid to the Petitioners at 5 the earliest, keeping in mind that the possession of the disputed land has already been taken over from the Petitioners as back as in the year 2004. 7. It will be open to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the prayer for grant of interim compensation to the Petitioners payable in respect of the disputed lands, if such application is made, in accordance with law. The determination of compensation amount be concluded and award be passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than SIX MONTHS from today. 8. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/FEB10/wp4404.09