1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION No. 605/2009 IN WRIT PETITION No. 5335/2008. Shri Shrikant Shankarrao Daulatkar and others. -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 24, 2011. Heard Shri S.M. Puranik, learned Counsel for applicants, Mrs. Dangre, learned Addl. G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri A.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Order of this Court dated 03.02.2009 in Writ Petition No. 5225/2008 is sought to be reviewed by contending that, mandatory opportunity of hearing envisaged by Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act has not been extended to applicants/petitioners. It is 2 pointed out that there was partition inter-se between the petitioners and even before Section 4 notification, the employees and agents of respondents forcibly entered possession. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have perused the papers of Misc. Civil Application as also of Writ Petition. Facts show that Section 4 notification was published some time in the year 2008 and its corrigendum was then published in Government gazette on 10.04.2008. Public notice under section 5[1] of the Act was issued on 05.06.2008 and petitioners have filed their objection on 21.07.2008. In said objection, they have pointed out that contractors before receipt of even work order have entered forcibly their fields, trees standing on dhuras were cut and black soil in the field has been excavated and has been used for construction of walls for the project. Respondents have along with their reply filed order sheet dated 21.07.2008 in Section 5A proceeding, which records filing of this objection and grant of oral hearing. 3 In this background, the order dated 03.02.2009 records that only objection raised by petitioners was about proper demarcation on land belonging to each of them and though petitioners were present on spot, they failed to point out boundaries of their respective land. The petition has been dismissed because of this opportunity extended to petitioners. Shri Puranik, learned counsel has urged that as the trees were cut and land was excavated, the boundary marks were not visible. He further makes a grievance that the proposed canal is being taken through the middle of the agricultural land and efforts of petitioners was to have it directed from boundaries thereof, so that an unobstructed single piece becomes available for cultivation. Objection filed to it, in response to Section 5A notice does not reveal any such efforts. It appears that only objection raised was about middle portion and boundaries interse. It is apparent that in view of the subsequent events, the said objection itself is rendered infructuous. Hence without observing 4 anything on the merits and with liberty to petitioners to make such grievance, as they are eligible to make in view of their contentions, we dispose of the Misc. Civil Application. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd