1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 2462 OF 2011. Hiralal Satyanarayan Pande and others. -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 12, 2011. Heard Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri Sonare, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri A.B. Patil, learned Counsel appears for acquiring Authority. Contention is, award as made in relation to lands of petitioners, is rendered infructuous as some other land of petitioners is being used for construction of canal. Our attention has been invited to documents filed along with Civil Application (W) No.1719/2011 and also to respective maps. 2 Shri Patil, learned Counsel for acquiring authority and Shri Sonare, learned A.G.P. for Land Acquisition Officer, state that canal is being dug at its specified place and that place remains unaltered. Our attention has been invited to maps filed as Annexure-2 and Annexure-4 with Writ Petition along with the affidavit to show that both the maps are showing the same position and there is no change in it. Shri Kshirsagar, learned Counsel states petitioners do not dispute this statement as contained in affidavit. Perusal of canal reveals that it passes through field gut no.26 and after coming down (towards south side) takes a right turn and then enters the portion of land situated below gut no.12, as shown in Annexure-2. Those portions are independently shown as portions 13, 14 and 15 in map at Annexure- 4. Shri Patil, learned Counsel has stated that formation of 26-A which is adjacent to gut no.26, is not reflected in the map at Annexure-2. Similarly, separate numbers of gut nos. 13, 14 and 15 also do not appear in that map below gut no.12. He states that on spot there is no boundary in existence between 26 and 26-A or then between gut no.12 and 12-A. He points out that 13, 14 and 15 are amalgamated together to form gut no.12A. 3 As there is no boundary on spot, according to him though canal is proceeding further as per its original location, taking advantage of absence of boundary, a dispute is sought to be raised by the petitioners. It is apparent that disputed questions of fact arise. Petitioners claim that location of canal is not in land which is acquired. While according to respondents it is in the land which is acquired for construction of canal. It is however not in dispute that part of land of petitioners has been acquired for construction of canal and award under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act is already made in that respect. The disputed questions of facts arise, which cannot be resolved in this petition by this Court. Hence, without observing anything more in this respect and with liberty to petitioners to take such steps as are open to them in law, present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd