1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7914 OF 2009 1) Achut s/o Shrirang Chavan, R/o­Palaskheda, Tq­Kaij, Dist­Beed and others. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai­32 and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.S.S. Dambe Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.D.R. Survase Advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr.D.J. Chaudhari Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 13TH JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2. This Petition is entirely misconceived. After issuance of public notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Petitioner was expected to file objection within 30 days. However, he failed to avail of the same. The grievance of the Petitioner is that no hearing nor any personal notice was given to him before issuance of the impugned notification. Whereas, personal notice was received only on 11th May, 2009. This argument is devoid of merits. The Petitioner however, will get opportunity of personal hearing in terms of Section 5­A of the Act of 1894, which stage has not arrived as of now. 3. Counsel for the Respondents points out from the record, that after issuance of Section 4 Notification, the further steps are being taken including Section 5­A enquiry. As and when Section 5­A enquiry is undertaken, the Petitioner would be given opportunity of hearing in the said 3 enquiry. It will be open to the Petitioner to raise all objections at that stage. As aforesaid, the grievance made in this Petition that the petitioner was not given prior notice before issuance of Section 4 Notification or for that matter, before the steps taken by the authorities for the measurement, is misconceived. 4. Hence Writ Petition is dismissed, with the above observations. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/JAN10/wp7914.09