{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1367 OF 2009 1. Bababai Laxman Pawar, R/o Garkhed, Aurangabad 2. Arunabai Bhausaheb Pawar R/o Garkhed, Aurangabad 3. Bhagwan Laxman Pawar R/o Garkhed, Aurangabad 4. Rajendra Laxman Pawar R/o Garkhed, Aurangabad 5. Suresh Laxman Pawar R/o Garkhed, Aurangabad 6. Anita Rajendra Gadve R/o Ahmednagar 7. Kavita Bhausaheb Pawar R/o Garkhed, Aurangabad 8. Bharat Bhausaheb Pawar R/o Garkhed, Aurangabad 9. Ravindra Raosaheb Pawar R/o Garkhed, Aurangabad 10. Sarika Raosaheb Pawar R/o Garkhed, Aurangabad 11. Rahul Raosaheb Pawar R/o Garkhed, Aurangabad PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra {2} Through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner, Aurangabad 3. The Assistant Director, Town Planning Aurangabad Municipal Corporation Aurangabad 4. The Collector, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.A.P.Bhandari h/f Mr.S.V.Gangapurwala, for petitioners Mr.V.G.Ghatge, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 4 Mr.S.N.Pagare, Advocate for respondent No.2 & 3 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 2nd September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to initiate acquisition proceedings and to pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of their lands at survey No. {3} 50/1 and 53/1. The petitioners further pray, by virtue of prayer clause “C”, to direct the respondent No.4 to pay interest @ 15% in respect of the amount of compensation from the date of acquisition and possession till realization of the amount. 3. We need not dilate in respect of factual matrix of the present petition, as it would be suffice to state that Mr.Pagare, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 states on instructions that respondents No.2 and 3 would initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands of the petitioners. In the light of the aforesaid statement, which we accept as an undertaking to the Court, according to us, the petition needs to be allowed in terms of prayer clause “B” to the petition. In respect of prayer clause “C” to the petition, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act would take care of the relief which is prayed for at prayer clause “C” to the petition and need not be granted at this stage. The petition, therefore, would be liable to be dismissed in respect of prayer clause “C” to the petition. 4. Accordingly, we allow this petition and make the rule absolute in terms of the prayer clause “B” to the petition on the statement made by Mr.Pagare, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. In such circumstances there will be no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp1367-09