{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1358 OF 2009 1. Pandharinath s/o Renguntwar Nath @ Dr.R.P.Nath, R/o Nath Niwas, Behind ADCC Bank, Adalat Road, Aurangabad 2. Deokiran Pandharinath Nath R/o New Osmanpura, Aurangabad 3. Deoprakash s/o Pandharinath Nath R/o New Osmanpura, Aurangabad 4. Laxminarayan Raenguntwar Mhaisekar R/o Nutan Colony, Aurangabad PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner 3. The Assistant Director, Town Planning, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation Aurangabad 4. The Collector, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS {2} ....... Mr.M.N.Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents No.1 and 4 Mr.S.N.Pagare, Advocate for respondents No.2 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 29th 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 respondents No.1 to 3 to initiate land acquisition proceedings and to pay the compensation to the petitioners in respect of the acquisition of their lands at survey No.50/2/6, 53/2/2, 53/2/1 and 51/1. The petitioners also pray for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to pay interest @ 15% p.a. in respect of compensation, from the date of possession till the of realization of the aforesaid amount. 3. Mr.Pagare, learned counsel for respondents, states on instructions received from respondents No.2 and 3, that the respondents No.2 and 3 would initiate the acquisition proceedings {3} 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 nothing can be granted at his 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 by making rule absolute in terms of prayer clause “B” to the petition, on the statement made by Mr.Pagare, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp1358-09