1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.3123 Of 1997 1) Kachru s/o Narayan Langote, Age major, Occupation : agriculture, R/o Limbejalgaon, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad. 2) Sk. Mohamad Sk. Payaru, Age Major, Occupation : Labour, R/o As above. 3) Dagdu s/o Ananda Pawar, Age major, Occupation : agriculture, R/o As above. 4) Sk. Ibrahim s/o Papa Since deceased through Legal representatives: 4A) Rahmatbi w/o Ibrahim Syed, Age 40 years, Occupation: Household, R/o Limbejalgaon, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad. 4B) Bilkisbi d/o Ibrahim Sayed Age 15 years, Minor, under guardianship Mother Rahamatbi w/o Ibrahim Syed. 2 4C) Ruksana d/o Ibrahim Sayed, Age 13 years, Occupation : Education minor, u/g as above. 4D) Taheb S/o Ibrahim Sayed Age 11 years, Occupation: Education u/g of mother as above. 4E) Tayab s/o Ibrahim Sayed Age 8 years, Occupation : Nil u/g of mother as above. 5) Ramrao s/o Punjaba Dabhade Age major, Occupation: agriculture, and Labour R/o As above. 6) Anusayabai Amdadas Manal, Age Major, Occupation: Household and labour R/o As above., 7) Sudam s/o Vithoba Since deceased through Legal representatives 7A) Sangita w/o Sudam Jevughale, Age 30 years, Occupation : Household R/o Limbejalgaon, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad. 3 7B) Ramhari s/o Sudam Jevughale, Age 15 years, Occupation : Education R/o As above. 7C) Kavita D/o Sudam Jevughale, Age 7 years, Occupation: Education R/o u/g mother as above. 7D) Sopan s/o Sudam Jevughale, Age 5 years, U/g as above. 8) Parigabai w/o Mohan Age major, Occupation : Household, R/o As above. 9) Asaram s/o Kachru Hivale, Age Major, Occupation Ironsmith R/o As above. 10) Santaram s/o Kachru Hivale, Age Major, Occupation & R/o As above, 11) Ganpat s/o Kachru Hivale, Age Major, Occupation & R/o As above. 12) Shekhlal s/o Sukh Abdul Age major, Occupation : agriculture, R/o As above., 13) Namdeo s/o Dagdu Padghan, Age Major, Occ: agriculture, R./o As above. 4 14) Kausabai w/o Bhanudas Age Major, Occupation : agriculture, R/o As above, 15) Ashok s/o Dhondiram Girhe, Age Major, Occupation & R/o As above. .. Petitioners. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department, Mantralaya, Bombay. 2) Executive Engineer, Medium Project Irrigation Division, Aurangabad. 3) The Assistant Engineer, No.1, Minor Irrigation Sub Division, Aurangabad. 4) The Collector, Aurangabad Through Special Land Acquisition Officer (J.P. 1) Aurangabad. 5) Rehabilitation Officer, District Office, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. -------- 5 Shri. S.K. Adkine, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader for respondents Nos.1,4 and 5. Shri. T.B. Bhosale, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 7th OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER K.K. TATED, J.): 1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking directions against respondent to initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of their houses bearing Nos.341, 352, 343, 272, 247, 346/2, 353, 354, 330, 349, 348, 383, 367, 356 situated at village Limbejalgaon, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad. 2) It is the case of the petitioners that 6 respondent issued Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 2nd July 1991 for acquiring some structure for Tembhapuri Medium Project from village Limbejalgaon, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad. The respondents also issued necessary notices under section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, the respondent passed Award dated 15th March 1994 awarding compensation in respect of house property. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though their structures were affected because of the acquisition, the respondents failed to pass any award in respect of their structure. It is the case of the petitioners that, the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad by letter dated 2nd April 1991 submitted his survey report to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Aurangabad and stated that the petitioners' house property was also noticed near the acquired land along with 7 others. On the basis of the said survey report, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that they are also entitled for compensation in respect of their structures. He further submits that the owner of the land Babasaheb Ambadas submitted a letter dated 27th June 1991 in the office of the Sub Divisional Engineer, Minor Irrigation, informing that the petitioners are unauthorized occupant of his land and therefore they are not entitled for any compensation. On the basis of these submissions the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents directing them to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of their house property immediately. 3) The learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. S.V. Kurundkar appearing on behalf 8 of respondents Nos.1,4 and 5 submits that the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 24th June 1991 for acquiring some of the house property from village Limbejalgaon for Tembhapuri Medium Project. In the said notification petitioners’ house property is not shown. He further submits that after following due process of law, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated 15th March 1994 and awarded compensation in respect of house property bearing Nos.199, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209 and 170. He summits that as petitioners' house property is not shown in Section 4 Notification, there is no question of passing any award in their favour. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed. 4) Leaned counsel Shri. Bhosale appearing 9 on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 - acquiring body states that they never took possession of the petitioners' house property. He further submits that respondent Nos.2 and 3 never forwarded any proposal for initiating acquisition proceedings in respect of petitioners' property. Therefore, there is no question of granting any compensation to them. He further submits whether the petitioners’ property is affected because of Tembhapuri Medium Project are disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be decided in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of the submissions he relies on the judgment in the matter of Suresh Bapurao Landge v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in 2009(6) Mh.L.J. 62. 5) We have heard both the sides at length. It is admitted fact that respondents - State of Maharashtra issued notification under 10 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring some house property for Tembhapuri Medium Project from village Limbejalgaon. In the said notification under Section 4 petitioners' property is not shown. As the petitioners' property is not shown in the Section 4 Notification there is no question of passing any direction to the respondents to start acquisition proceedings in respect of petitioners’ property. Therefore, there is no substance in the writ petition. 6) The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. TATED, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.3123.07