wp7024.07 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7024 OF 2007 Umakant s/o Kashinathappa Bapatle & others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.V. Patil, advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Gunale, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.P. Phatke, AGP for the State. Mr. Ruturaj Patil, advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 4 to 6. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6418 OF 2008 Gopalrao s/o Wamanrao Patil & others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Abhijit Choudhari, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.P. Phatke, AGP for the State. Mr. Ruturaj Patil, advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 5. ===== wp7024.07 2 CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 15 th FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 Writ petition no. 7024/2007 is pending since 2007. The main prayers made in the petition read thus : C By a writ of mandamus or by any other appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents be directed to start the work of water storage tank at village Dhondi Hipparga, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur, with immediate effect in pursuance of the sanction of the Government and take necessary steps for completion of the work of said water storage tank. D By a writ of mandamus or by any other appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents be restrained from canceling the permission of water storage tank of village Dhondi Hipparga, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 3 Respondent no. 1 has filed reply-affidavit dated 29-1-2011 stating therein that the project (Construction of water storage tank at village Dhondi Hipparga and Tondchir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur) was sanctioned by the Government vide order dated 13-8-2001. It is also stated in the affidavit that 76 H land would be required for the project, out of which 30 H land would be wp7024.07 3 required for actual construction of the tank and the remaining land would submerge. After mentioning all the details in respect of this project, respondent no. 1 has stated that considering the public interest, they have decided to go ahead with the project after following the due procedure for acquiring the lands under the Land Acquisition Act. 4 In Writ Petition no. 6418/2008, the petitioners have stated that they have made detailed representation dated 9-6-2008 opposing the project for the reasons stated in the representation and their representation has not been decided till this date. 5 Considering the controversy involved in both the writ petitions, we are satisfied that these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by following order : . Respondent no. 2 - Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioners dated 9-6-2008 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. wp7024.07 4 . If the representation made by the petitioners in Writ Petition no. 6418/2008 is rejected, it is open to the respondents to proceed further and complete the project expeditiously after following the due procedure for acquiring the lands under Land Acquisition act. 6 With these observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. 7 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) ( D.B. BHOSALE ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb