1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8403 OF 2009 1. Dnyanoba s/o Yashwanta Tandale, Age 75 years, Occu.Agril., 2. Nivruti s/o Yeshwanta Tandale, Age 70 years, Occu.Agril., 3. Jagannath s/o Yeshwanta Tandale, Age 65 years, Occu.Agril., 4. Maruti s/o Ganpati Munde, Age 75 years, Occu.Agril., 5. Sarjerao s/o Ganpati Munde, Age 70 years, Occu.Agril., 6. Raosaheb s/o Narayan Andhale, Age 60 years, Occu.Agril., 7. Dnyanoba s/o Narayan Andhale, Age 55 years, Occu.Agril., 8. Vithal s/o Babasaheb Andhale, Age 60 years, Occu.Agril., 9. Prayagbai w/o Sarjerao Andhale, Age 55 years, Occu.Agril., 10. Suresh s/o Sarjerao Andhale, Age 35 years, Occu.Agril., 11. Rama s/o Laxman Andhale, Age 45 years, Occu.Agril., 12. Navnath s/o Namdeo Andhale, Age 50 years, Occu.Agril., 13. Bharat s/o Namdeo Andhale, Age 45 years, Occu.Agril., 14. Kamlakar s/o Namdeo Andhale, Age 40 years, Occu.Agril., 2 15. Bhalchandra s/o Namdeo Andhale, Age 45 years, Occu.Agril., 16. Pandurang s/o Waman Andhale, Age 45 years, Occu.Agril., 17. Waman s/o Kundlik Andhale, Age 65 years, Occu.Agril., 18. Audumber s/o Aarjun Late, Age 18 years, Occu.Agril., 19. Sau Satyabhamabai w/o Arjun Late Age 50 years, Occu.Agril., 20. Tulshiram s/o Bhagwan Andhale, Age 65 years, Occu.Agril., 21. Aprugabai w/o Tulshiram Andhale, Age 60 years, Occu.Agril., 22. Kalyan s/o Bhagwan Andhale, Age 55 years, Occu.Agril., All R/o Hingani, Taluka and District Beed .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Collector, Beed, District Beed 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jayakwadi Prakalpa, Beed, District Beed 4. The Executive Engineer, B & C Department, Beed Division, Nagar road, Beed, District Beed .. RESPONDENTS Shri D.R.Jayabhar, Advocate for petitioners Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 22nd March 2010 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 petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to pay rental compensation to the petitioners. The claims submitted by the petitioners, undisputedly, is pending consideration with the respondents. Since the claims of the petitioners for payment of rental compensation have not been decided, according to us it would be appropriate that directions are issued to respondents to decide the pending claims of the petitioners. 3. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to decide the pending claims of the petitioners, if pending, in accordance with law, within period of six months from today. In the event the petitioners are held entitled to be paid the rental compensation, we direct the respondents to pay the rental compensation to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible. 4 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/8403.09wp)