1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3033 OF 2009 Satish Bhagwan Kawade ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ....Respondents. Shri. A.B. Kale Advocate h/f. Shri. R.K. Shingapur, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the respondents. CORAM : V. C. DAGA & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 17TH JULY, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Perused the petition. 3. Rule returnable forthwith. 4. The learned A.G.P. waives service on behalf of respondents. Heard finally by the consent of parties. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that 2 the proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the lands of the petitioner was initiated on 30.06.2000 and the possession thereof was taken on 13.1.2001 and 11.8.2001 after finalization of the private negotiations. He further submits that on 3.8.2000 notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) was issued by the respondent No. 3 in the official Gazette and declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 17.5.2004. 6. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 12.05.2006 However, no statutory benefits contemplated under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act were awarded to the petitioners. The petitioners claimed to have made representation on 30th September 2008 claiming statutory benefits under section 34 of the Act. The said representation is still pending. He, thus, submits that the respondents in general and the respondent No. 3, the Special Land Acquisition Officer in particular be directed to hear and dispose of the representation made by the petitioner by reasoned order following principles of natural justice. 7. For contra, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents submits that the reference made under section 18 of the Act at the instance of petitioners is still pending in the Civil Court. He, thus, submits that the same benefits can be claimed in the reference pending before the Civil Court. 3 8. In reply to above, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that what is being claimed through the representation is statutory benefit under section 34 of the Act, the entitlement of which is not in dispute. It needs no determination except arithmetical calculations. He further submits that if he succeeds in the representation made to the Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer, in that event, the petitioners would be entitled to claim monetory benefits pending reference under section 18 of the Act. In other words, he submits that if he is asked to approach the reference Court for the reliefs claimed in the representation made then he will have to wait till the reference proceedings are decided which may take years together. He, thus, submits that this is a fit case wherein the directions as prayed needs to be issued. 9. After having heard both the parties, the rival contentions raised are no doubt attractive. However, without going in to the merits thereof workable order could be passed. 10. In the above view of the matter, We direct the Collector/ Special Land Acquisition Officer to decide the representation made by the petitioner dated 30th September 2008 by reasoned order within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order after hearing the petitioners as well as the acquiring body. In the event, the petitioners succeed, the petitioner would be entitled to reap the benefits thereof. 4 Needless to say, in the event, the order is passed against the petitioners, it would be open for the petitioners to claim statutory benefit under section 34 of the Act in the land acquisition reference proceedings which is already pending in the Civil Court. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. [ A.V. POTDAR, J. ] [ V.C. DAGA, J. ] ssc/wp3033.09