- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2539/2009 Asraji Namdeo Bedare, age 60 yrs., occu.agril., r/o Kotan & Amalner Tq.Patoda Dist.Beed. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Collector, Beed. Dist.Beed. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Division, Beed. Dist.Beed. 4. The Executive Engineer, Local Sector, Beed. Dist.Beed. ...Respondents... ..... Shri D.R. Jayabhar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N.N. Jadhav, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 24.08.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Hardas, J.) : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. - 2 - 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3] Shri D.R. Jayabhar, learned counsel for the petitioner makes an oral motion for joining the Executive Engineer, Local Sector, Beed Dist.Beed as respondent to the petition. Motion is allowed. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Shri N.N. Jadhav, learned AGP accepts notice on behalf of the newly added respondent. 4] By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to declare award of the lands of the petitioner and to pay compensation to the petitioner accordingly. In the light of the limited relief, which the petitioner has sought for in this petition, we consider it appropriate to decide this petition finally at the stage of admission. 5] It appears that the land of the petitioner came to be acquired some time in the year 1996 for the purposes of construction of a village percolation tank. Despite the fact that the possession of the land of the petitioner was taken, no steps for acquisition of the land were taken and consequently no compensation was paid to the petitioner. It appears that on 4.1.2007, a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued. But thereafter, it appears that the said notification has lapsed. 6] On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and in the affidavit in reply, it is stated that steps would be taken and the proceedings would be initiated and completed within a period of one year from today. We accept the aforesaid statement made bay the learned AGP at the Bar as an undertaking to the Court and - 3 - accordingly allow this petition and make the Rule absolute by directing the respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings within one year from today. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 7] It appears that by virtue of our order dated 28.7.2009, we had imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- on the respondent no.3 for failure to provide the necessary instructions to the learned AGP, consequent of which was the adjournment of hearing of this petition. The respondent no.3 has tendered his apology in the affidavit in reply, which is filed, which we accept. WE direct refund of the amount deposited by the respondent no.3 while issuing a warning to the respondent no.3 to provide necessary instructions to the learned AGP in future promptly and to ensure that hearing of the matters is not delayed on account of want of instructions. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c248094