1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 208 OF 2009 Gena s/o. Maruti Khambe and 7 others. .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents -- Mr. D.R. Jaybhar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 279 OF 2009 Khandu s/o. Muktni Tanpure, and 4 others. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents --- Mr. Dr. D.R. Jaybhar, Adocate for the petitioners Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for respondents. 2 With WRIT PETITION NO. 280 OF 2009 Tatyaram Dagduba Hule .. Petitioner's Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents. -- Mr. D.R. Jaybhar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Kadam, AGP for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7461 OF 2008 Rajendra Eknath Walekar and others. ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents --- Mr. D.R. Jaybhar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.K. Kadam, AGP for the respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 4TH AUGUST, 2009. 3 COURT’S ORDER : [PER B.R. GAVAI,J.] 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. . The petitioners have filed the present petition for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners by declaring the awards for the lands of which possession has been taken by the respondents. 2] The possession of the land has been taken in the year 2002 for the construction of percolation tank. However, though possession is taken in the year 2002, neither the award is passed nor compensation is paid to the petitioners. 3] In response to the notice issued by this court, it has been stated that though Section 4 notification was published on 4th January, 2007, the acquisition proceedings could not be completed within the prescribed period, as the process of acquisition depends on various departments of the State. 4] Perusal of the Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act would reveal that the declaration under Section 6 has to be made in respect of the land covered by the notification under Section 4, within a period of 1 year from the date of publication of the section 4 notification. It is thus clear that the notification dated 18/2/2006under Section 4 has lapsed. 4 5] Though right to property is not a fundamental right, the Apex Court in the judgment delivered in the case of “Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur, Chennai and others (2005) 7 SCC 627” has recognized the said right to be a constitutional right. Possession of the land of a citizen cannot be permitted to be taken and that too without paying him compensation for the said land, within the period prescribed in the statute. 6] In response to the orders passed by this court, the Additional Collector, Beed, who hold the charge of the Collector, Beed is personally present in the court. A communication is addressed by him to the effect that the compensation would be paid to the petitioners, within a period of 1 year from today, by following due procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act. 7] One of the reasons given by the respondents for not making payment is that the land is acquired for the Zilla Parishad and the Zilla Parishad has not deposited the funds. If land of a citizen is acquired by the State, the State is bound to pay him compensation. If the Zilla Parishad does not pay to the Government, the Government has ample measures to ensure such deposit of compensation by the Zilla Parishad. 5 8] In the present case, though possession of the land is taken prior to 7 years and though the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right to own the land, compensation is not paid to them. We could have taken a serious view of the matter, but in view of the order passed in one of the matters today I.e. In W.P. No. 938/2007, we do not propose to proceed further. 9] We are, therefore, disposing of the petition by taking on record the communication addressed by the Additional Collector Beed and the oral assurance given by the Additional Collector, Beed in the court, that compensation would be paid to the petitioners within a year, after completing the land acquisition proceedings. 10] Writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms with costs which are quantified at Rs.10,000/- in each of the matters. Costs shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of 1 month from today by a crossed demand draft payable in the name of the petitioners. Rule made absolute in above terms. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/wp208.09