1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7558 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders Shri.S.V. Adwant, Adv. for Petitioners. Shri. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Shri. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate Resp.No.5. CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2010. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners claim to be project affected persons. They claim rehabilitation under the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999. 3. The petitioners admittedly entered 2 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders into an agreement with the Corporation by accepting Rs.50,000/- each. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners entered into an agreement and accepted Rs.50,000/- each, the same was done under duress. It was the responsibility and the duty of the State to rehabilitate the petitioners and the State could not execute an agreement in this fashion by allowing parties like acquiring body to enter into agreement and pay Rs.50,000/- each. 4. The allegation that the agreements were got executed under duress are disputed. Even otherwise, in the facts of the case, we are not inclined to deal with that issue. In view of the fact that the parties have entered into agreement and accepted money, no interference in exercise of extraordinary 3 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is called for. The Writ Petition is rejected. [K.K. TATED,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] sut/JUNE10/wp7558.08