1 unreproted IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1889 OF 2009. Baburao S/o Kashinath Reddy, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o At Post Dadaji, Tal. Nilanga,Dist.Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Special Land Acquisition, Latur, Percolation Tank and Irrigation Tank, Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mrs. Netrali N.Gangwal (Jain), advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.Ruturaj Patil, advocate for the intervener. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 12.04.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V.Hardas,J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The present petitioner claims to be the owner of land at Gat No.7, situated at village Dadgi, Tal. Nilanga, District Latur. According to the petitioner, a notification U/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued for acquisition of the land on 4.10.2001. The land admeasuring 97 Ares was proposed to be acquired. Accordingly, declaration U/s 6 came to be issued and an award came to be passed on 4.5.2002 and compensation for the area i.e. 97 Ares was shown to be Rs.1,79,426/- (Rupees One lac seventy nine thousand four hundred twenty six). The petitioner, however, states that the petitioner had been actually paid an amount of Rs.53,600/- (Rupees fifty three thousand six hundred). On inquiry being made by the petitioner was informed by the Respondent No.2 that land to the extent of 37 Ares was required and rest of the 60 Ares 3 land was not required and would be deleted. As per E statement, that only 37 Ares land was to be acquired and proposal for deletion of 60 Ares was forwarded to the competent authority. It appears that the proposal for deletion of 60 Ares land has not been approved by the competent authorities. The net result as on today is that land admeasuring 97 Ares came to be acquired while the petitioner has been paid compensation for land admeasuring 37 Ares. 3. Undisputedly, the Respondents are enjoined with the duty of paying compensation to the petitioner in respect of the land which is acquired under the award and for which compensation is specified in the said award. The Respondents can not escape from their liability of payment of compensation. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the intervener very fairly states that the remaining compensation i.e. the compensation in respect of 60 Ares of the land would be paid by intervener to the petitioner within four (4) months from today. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the 4 Court. 4. We accordingly allow this petition and direct the Respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioner, in accordance with law, in respect of the land for which the petitioner has not been paid the compensation. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp188909