1 WP 1299/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1299 OF 2005 Venkat Maroti Salunke & Others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. ----- Shri. V.V. Tamke, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri. Umakant K Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos.1 to 3. Shri. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.4. ------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: 6th JULY 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioners' contention is that in the year 1992 the lands of the petitioners were acquired for construction of KT Weirs but the Award was not passed. Therefore, this petition was filed in the year 2005. 2 WP 1299/2005 3) Affidavit-in-reply is filed by the Zilla Parishad. In para 4 of the reply the deponent contended as under : “4. I say that, I deny all the contentions raised by the petitioners in the writ petition. I say that, first of all I deny that the lands of petitioners are acquired for construction of K.T.Veir at village Peth, Taluka and District Latur. I say that, the entire claim of petitioners are on imaginary basis and misconceived. I say that, the contentions of the petitioners are that their lands have been acquired in lieu of submergence of water of K.T. Veir. I say that, there is no question of acquiring the land of petitioners as so far as level of K.T. Veir is concerned, its height is up to the bank of river only and therefore there is no question of submergence, and the river bank of K.T. Veir is sufficient for the purpose of storage of water. I say that, therefore, there is no question of paying amount of compensation nor there is any question of passing of any award.” 4) Learned counsel Shri. Hon appearing for the Zilla Parishad submitted that in fact the petitioners are benefited as the hight of the Bandh was not allowed to be increased by the 3 WP 1299/2005 State Government. Therefore, the petitioners' lands were saved from submergence. In case the petitioners' lands had submerged or were affected by the project, the Zilla Parishad would have forwarded a proposal accordingly. There is no case made out that the Zilla Parishad has intentionally deprived the petitioners, according to the counsel, of their legitimate rights. The counsel further submits that a proposal was once forwarded by the Zilla Parishad to the State Government but the State Government did not accord any such permission to acquire the lands of the petitioners. 5) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners disputes the contentions raised by the Zilla Parishad and submits that due to the construction of KT weirs the lands of the petitioners are affected and are practically submerged. 4 WP 1299/2005 6) In the light of the record placed before us, the issue could not be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction that also at the belated stage. 7) In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we decline to enter into the matter. If the petitioners desire they may resort to appropriate alternate remedy as permissible in law. 8) The writ petition is disposed of. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.2422.05