*1* wp.5708.01.909.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5708 OF 2001 Tukaram Dnyanu Savant. ..Petitioner ­Versus­ Special Land Acquisition Officer No.7 and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Umesh Mankapure, for the Petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 09th August, 2011. P.C.: 1 This Writ Petition was pending in this Court for admission since 2001. My attention is invited to an order passed on this Writ Petition as far back on 12th February, 2002. 2 On the last occasion, I directed the learned AGP to take instructions and file an affidavit. Accordingly, the affidavit of the Deputy Collector (Resettlement), Sangli has been filed in which it is stated that the village Ghanwad, taluka : Vita­Khanapur has been included in the notification in the benefited zone of that project. It is also admitted that the Petitioner was given the letters dated 12.01.1998 and 19.04.1998 by the District Resettlement Officer, Sangli in respect of acquisition of land. It is also admitted that in an inquiry under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there is a specific remark that 0.20 R land may be acquired from Gat No.517 of village Ghanwad. Although it is asserted that the possession has been taken of 0.81 R from this Gat No.517 on 01.04.2009, yet in paragraph­8 of this affidavit which has been affirmed *2* wp.5708.01.909.sxw on 04.08.2011, it is stated that the acquired land has not been distributed to the project affected persons so far. 3 This petition discloses the sorry state of affairs. There has been no stay or injunction against the Respondents and they could have very well proceeded in terms of the powers that are conferred by the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Resettlement Act, 1986. There was nothing to prevent the authorities from taking physical possession. Further, if the project is notified in the year 1997, there is no explanation as to why the acquired land has not been distributed to the project affected persons till date. All this defeats the mandate of the Resettlement Act. The project affected persons cannot be treated in this manner. 4 In these circumstances, the Respondents are directed to treat this Writ Petition as a representation of the Petitioner and in terms of the statements that are made in the affidavit, they shall pass appropriate orders after hearing the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and within a period of four weeks from today. Equally, the steps may be taken to expeditiously distribute the acquired lands to the project affected persons. The Writ Petition is disposed of in these terms with no order as to costs. 5 In this matter, I had directed that an inquiry be made and a report be submitted as to why the Writ Petitions such old as the present one are not placed for admission. I had also directed the Registrar (Judicial) to find out as to whether, any more petitions like this are lying in the registry without any date being notified for admission. The CMIS programme which has been generated, does not include such petitions and therefore, they are lying unattended for more than 10 years in some cases. I had extended time for submission of the report by the Registrar (Judicial). Although this Writ Petition is disposed of, the Registrar (Judicial) shall place the report before the learned Judge who is assigned *3* wp.5708.01.909.sxw the civil writ petitions under other Acts. Similarly, a report be placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice for necessary directions. The Registrar (Judicial) should also place a copy of report for perusal of the Honourable Mr. Justice A.M.Khanwilkar so that His Lordship can direct necessary corrective measures. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)