1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2966 OF 2010 Uddhao Raghobaji Gaurkhede and 24 others. -: VERSUS :- Western Coal Fields Limited, Nagpur -14. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 17, 2010. Heard Shri B.G. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri M.P. Badar, learned Counsel for respondent. Petitioners/landowners have questioned the order passed below Exh.9 by the Special Tribunal, Nagpur on 17.06.2010 rejecting their application for adjournment on the ground that their Advocate was busy in High Court. This Court has on 02.07.2010 issued notice for final disposal and stayed delivery of judgment. Today, Shri Badar, learned Counsel has appeared for respondent W.C.L. He states that petitioners have created unnecessary confusion 2 as impugned order is not passed in Compensation Case Nos.1,2,3,5,6,7,8 and 21 of 2007. According to him, then claimants therein have unnecessarily approached this Court. He further states that the said order is passed in Compensation Case No.95/2006 and 97 to 105 of 2006. According to him, the impugned order is passed after exercise of due discretion by the Special Tribunal and hence does not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel states that the order is passed in all matters and if not in cases it is presumed to have been passed in matters as stated by Shri Badar, learned Counsel, the claimants therein are parties before this Court. Though the respondent is opposing the grant of opportunity to petitioners, I find that their lands have been acquired and therefore, they deserve to be paid compensation as per the Coal Bearing (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. Only because their Advocate gave incorrect reason for seeking adjournment, it cannot be a sufficient cause to deny them that opportunity. Hence, the impugned order dated 17.06.2010 passed in Compensation Case Nos. 95/2006 and 97/2006 to 105/2006 by the Special Tribunal is quashed and set aside and the respective claimants are permitted to lead 3 their evidence on merits. As there is some dispute between the parties about passing of such orders in remaining matters, by way of abundant precaution, it is made clear that such order if any, in other matters i.e. Compensation Case Nos. 1, 3,5,6,7,8 and 21 of 2007 is also set aside and the claimants therein are also given similar liberty. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs. Certified copy expedited. On the request of learned Counsel for respondent, the Special Tribunal is directed to expedite the adjudication of said compensation cases, and to attempt to decide the same at the earliest and in any case by 31.03.2011. JUDGE Rgd.