(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1628 OF 1998 Yashwant Rambhau Kadam, Age : 69 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Ghodegaon, Taluka : Newasa, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer-I, Mula Project, Command Area, Ahmednagar. 3. Settlement Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Yervada, Pune. 4. The Deputy Director of Rehabilitation, Ahmednagar. (Through Collector, Ahmednagar). 5. The Tahasildar, Newasa, Taluka : Newasa, District : Ahmednagar. 6. Gangadhar Bhaguji Zade, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Ghodegaon, Taluka : Newasa, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 5. Respondent no.6 served (Absent). ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 13TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 7th November 1977, passed by the respondent no.2, to the extent of Gat No. 265/2, admeasuring 76 Are, situated at village Ghodegaon (Taluka : Newasa, District : Ahmednagar). 2. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the land admeasuring 76 Are, in Gat No. 265/2, is owned by the petitioner. However, inadvertently, an award came to be passed in favour of respondent no.6, though he is not owner of the land. It is submitted that the petitioner came to know about the said award, when the authorities came to take possession of the land (3) in question, and immediately thereafter, the same has been challenged. 3. Noticing the aforesaid fact, this Court had passed interim order dated 21st August 2003, thereby protecting possession of the petitioner. 4. From the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 5, it is clear that the award of the aforesaid land came to be passed in favour of respondent no.6 on account of certain incorrect entries in the revenue record which were entered while effecting the consolidation scheme. The respondent no.6 has admitted that the land in Gat No. 265/2 is owned by the petitioner and, that the award came to be incorrectly passed in favour of respondent no.6. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". However, parties shall bear their own costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE bgp/wp1628