1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6578 OF 2010 Minakshi w/o Babasaheb Chate Age 36 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Borphadi, Taluka and District Beed. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Bombay 2. The Collector, Beed, Collector Office, Beed. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jayakwadi Project, Beed. 4. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department (Z.P.), Beed ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for the petitioner Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 to 3 Shri K.B. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent No.4 ..... CORAM: R.S. MOHITE & SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED: 30th August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final 2 hearing at the admission stage. 2. By the present petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, directing the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner to pay the rental compensation @ 8% with an additional interest of 6% in four weeks. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that his land was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jayakwadi Project, Beed i.e. respondent No.3 for the construction of the Borphadi Percolation Tank No.9 during the year 2004 and possession of the said land of the petitioner was taken by acquiring body on 1.1.2004 by way of private negotiations. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 3.11.2006. The petitioner also submits that, he has filed an application for rental compensation on 6.8.2007, copy of which is produced at Exhibit C (Page 39). However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the said application/ representation is pending for more than two years. The petitioner has not been given any rental compensation and interest thereon so far. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3 5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, since the representation dated 6.8.2007 of the petitioner is pending with the respondent No.4 for the rental compensation since last more than two years, the respondent No.4 is directed to decide the said representation within the period of three months and to communicate to the petitioner accordingly and with the said directions, present petition stands disposed of. 6. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.)