:1: :1: :1: srp. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2009 OF 2006. WRIT PETITION NO. 2009 OF 2006. WRIT PETITION NO. 2009 OF 2006. Shankar Daji Chavan. ..Petitioner. Versus. The State of Maharashtra & ..Respondents. --- Uday P. Warunjikar for the petitioner. Vijay Patil for the respondent no.3. Mr. C. R. Sonawane A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATE: JUNE 13, 2007. DATE: JUNE 13, 2007. DATE: JUNE 13, 2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard both sides. The land of the petitioner is under acquisition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the possession of the petitioner’s land has been taken illegally and the work is being carried out by the respondents. His further grievance is that the enquiry under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act is not being conducted and finalised. 2. In the Reply-Affidavit filed by the respondent no.3, i.e., Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, respondent no.3 has stated that the land in question has been taken in possession by an agreement with the petitioner and it is agreed that the price of the land is to be fixed as provided under the Land Acquistion Act. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 further states that the possesion of the land has :2: :2: :2: been given to the respondent no.3 by the petitioner and he pointed out the Possession Receipt to that effect. In respect of the possession, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has delivered possession of the well, and not of the other portion of the land. We have perused the Possession Receipt exeucted in between the petitioner and the respondent no.3, and we find that the possession has been given, though there is some reference in the other correspondence in respect of the delivery of the Well, however the main Possesion Receipt is in respect of the entire land. Therefore we find that the possession has been given voluntarily by negotiation by the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner’s grievance that illegally the possession of his land is taken is without any merit. We, therefore, reject it. 3. So far as giving of an hearing under section 5-A enquiry is concerned, learned AGP for the State states that an hearing for enquiry under section 5-A will be given to the petitioner if it is already not given to him. Under these circumstances, we only direct the respondent - State of Maharashtra to complete 5-A enquiry in accordance with the law, and if no opportunity is given to the petitioner the hearing be given to the petitioner and thereafter the decision shall be taken. With these observations and directions petition is disposed of. :3: :3: :3: (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)