1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 7667 OF 2008 1. Shankarrao s/o. Sidhijivan Deshmukh, age 62 years, occ. agriculture, R/o. Ambegaon, taluka Nilanga, district Latur. 2. Shobha w/o. Malikarjun Kudumbale, age 48 years, occ. agriculture, r/o. Nilanga, tq.Nilanga, dist. Latur. - - Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Collector, Latur. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Udgir Division, Udgir, dist. Latur. 4. The Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune. 5. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nilanga, through its Secretary, Nilanga, tal. Nilanga, district Latur. - Respondents Shri Satish S. Manale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1 to 5. Shri S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for Respondent No.6. 2 CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 13th August 2009 ORAL ORDER : [ Per B. R. GAVAI, J.] 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner has claimed for two fold reliefs. Firstly, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents Nos.2 and 4 to deposit amount of compensation awarded in L.A.R. No. 1140 of 1990 and 1141 of 1990 by the Judgment and Award dated 21-9-2006. Secondly, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.6 to pay rental compensation as per the Government Resolution. 3. This Court was constrained to direct the Collector, Latur to remain personally present in this Court as it was noticed that though possession of the land of the petitioner has been taken as way back as in 1983 and though after remand, the Award was passed on 21-9-2006, the compensation as awarded by Reference Court was not paid to the petitioner. This was despite the fact that 3 there is no stay operating against the judgment and order passed by learned Reference Court. 4. No doubt that a right to property which was earlier guaranteed under the Constitution as a Fundamental Right has been taken away by the Constitutional amendment, however, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and others, reported in (2005) 7 S.C.C. 627 though right to property is no more fundamental right still it is recognized to be constitutional right. State cannot be permitted to take possession of the property of the citizen's of country and not pay compensation for decades together. The citizen has to suffer firstly on account of dispossession and secondly, on account of non receipt of compensation for decades together. Since we were come across various such matters in various districts including Beed and Jalna on earlier occasion, we were also required to summon presence of Collector, Beed. Looking at this pathetic situation, we were constrained to summon presence of the Collector, Latur. 5. In response to the orders issued by this Court, Shri Eknath s/o. Rajaram Dawale, who is presently working as Collector, Latur 4 district, is personally present in this Court. He has expressed unconditional apology. The Collector, Latur has also filed affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, the history pertaining to the acquisition of land in question and the decision of the Reference Court has been given. It has been stated in the reply that after the Award was passed by learned Reference Court on 21-9-2006, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 have addressed various communications to the respondents nos.5 and 6 directing them to deposit amount of enhanced compensation. It has been further stated that A.P.M.C., Nilanga is not in a position to pay compensation because of its poor financial position. It is further stated that there was continuous pursuation by respondents nos.2 and 3 with Director of Marketing to provide funds to respondent No.1. It is further stated that final amount of enhanced compensation has been deposited in the executing Court on 11-8-2009. 6. It is thus clear from the affidavit that only after this Court passed an order on 30-7-2009, the machinery appears to have been set in motion and the amount is deposited on 11-8-2009. It is also thus clear that only because of intervention of this Court, the amount appears to have been deposited in the executing Court. 5 7. Though, no doubt, the primary lapse appears to be on behalf of the respondent no.6 for not depositing the amount. However, the liability to pay to the citizens upon acquisition of their land is basically upon the State Government which acquires the land. If the requisite funds are not placed with the State Government by the acquiring body, we do not understand the haste in proceeding further with the acquisition and depriving the citizens of their valuable constitutional right to property. However, it has been informed to us that the State Government has now issued a Government Resolution thereby providing that unless 80 per cent of the estimated amount of compensation is deposited with the Collector, the acquisition proceedings should not proceed further. We accept the statement. However, we make it clear that if such a Government Resolution is not issued, the copy of the order be placed before the Chief Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra to do the needful in the matter. 8. Since the amount of compensation is already deposited in the executing Court, petition has served its purpose in so far as prayer clause (D) is concerned. In so far as prayer clauses (B) and (C) is concerned, we direct respondents Nos.2 and 3 to determine rental compensation payable to the petitioner within a 6 period of three months from today in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4943 of 2008. Needless to state that on determination of the rental compensation by respondents nos.2 and 3, respondent no.6 shall pay the said amount to the petitioner by a cross demand draft within a period of three months from such determination. Rule stands discharged with costs which are quantified at Rs.10,000/- payable to each of the petitioners by respondent No.6. The costs be paid within a period of four weeks from today by cross demand draft payable in favour of the petitioners. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp766708