1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3966 OF 1997. 1.Arjun S/o Vyankoba Panchal died through its L.Rs. a) Vithal Arjun Panchal, Age 44 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Harangul (Kh.) Taluka and District Latur. b) Shrikrishan S/o Arjun Panchal,Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o as above. c) Janardhan S/o Arjun Panchal, Age 35 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o as above. d) Subhadrabai W/o Arjun Panchal, Age 60 years, Occ. Household, R/o as above. 2. Mahadu S/o Dattu Panchal, Age major, Occ.Agriculture 3. Maruti S/o Ram Mulgave, Age major, Occ.Agriculture. 4. Eknath S/o Tukaram Mulgave, Age major, Occ.Agriculture. 5. Sambhaji S/o Gangaram Gawakare, since deceased through his legal representative (a) Kalawati W/o Sambhaji Gawakare, Age major, Occ. 2 Agriculture. 6. Manik S/o Sidhappa Zunje, Age major, Occ.Agriculture. 7. Damodhar Vyankoba Panchal, Age major, Occ.Agriculture. 8. Somnath S/o Shivaram Gawakare, Age major, Occ.Agriculture. 9. Santveer S/o Sambhaji Bhujbal, Age major, Occ.Agriculture. 10. Waman S/o Vyankoba Panchal, Age major, Occ.Agriculture. 11. Raghunath S/o Prabhu Panchal, Age major, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Harangul (Kd.) Tq. & Dist. Latur. All R/o Harangul (kh.) Tq. & Dist.Latur. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Executive Engineer, Public Works, Zilla Parishad, New Administrative Building, Latur Tq. & Dist. Latur. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Suarana Project, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ... Respondents. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3967 OF 1997. 1. Gangadhar S/o Narhari Mennamwar, Age major, Occ. Agriculture. 3 2. Baburao Gangadhar Shetkar, Age major, Occ.Agri., 3. Baliram S/o Narhari Mennamwar, Age major, Occ.Agriculture. 4. Balaji Desra Dhupe, Age major, Occ.Agriculture, 5. Dilip S/o Govindrao Kulkarni, Age major, Occ.Agriculture. 6. Anantrao S/o Narhari Kulkarni, Age major, Occ.Agriculture. 7. Sudhakar S/o Narhari Kulkarni, Age major, Occ. Agriculture. 8. Tulsiram S/o Mansingh Pokkalwad, Age major, Occ. Agriculture. 9. Nagorao S/o Dhondiba Pokkalwad, Age major, Occ.Agriculture. 10. Suryekant S/o Tulsiram Bolegave, Age major, Occ. Agriculture. 11. Ramesh S/o Govindrao Kulkarni, Age major, Occ.Agriculture, All R/o Village Handurgulli, Tq. Udgir, Dist.Latur. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. through Collector, Latur. 2. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Zilla Parishad, New Administrative Building, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. 3. The Special Land Acquisition 4 Officer, Purna Project, Latur, Tq. & Dist.Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mr.K.S.Bhore, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.G.Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 05.07.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. By these petitions, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the Respondents to pass an award U/s 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, on the basis of joint measurement made by the Respondents. 2. According to Mr.Bhore, learned counsel for the petitioners, the lands of the petitioners were acquired for widening of the road and for the said purpose a notification U/s 4 and declaration U/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were already issued. He, therefore, submits that 5 the Respondents are bound to pay compensation and pass the award for the same. 3. Mr.Patil, learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader on behalf of the Respondents submits that the orders passed by this Court in several such matters were challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide its judgment and order dated 12.5.1995 has quashed and set aside the orders passed by the High Court and had also annulled the judgment passed by the High Court in all such matters. 4. In so far as contention of Mr.Bhore, that the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as notification U/s 4 and declaration U/s 6 were already been issued, we are unable to accept the said contention. In all such matters, it was the stand of the State Government that in the year 1972 since there was drought in the State of Maharashtra and in order to provide work to the citizens residing in the rural areas, the cart-roads which were already in existence, were constructed in the Employment 6 Guarantee Scheme. It has also been consistent stand that wherever certain land was required, the consent of the adjoining land owners was taken and the roads were constructed with their consent. From the written statement which is filed to the RCS No.476/1995, it can be seen that the specific stand of the Respondents i.e. defendants therein that in the year 1985 they had undertaken the work of only strengthing the road under Employment Guarantee Scheme. In that view of the matter, the present case is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the said case has observed thus : "In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment under appeal, dismiss the writ petition of the writ petitioner (respondent here) and also annul all these judgments rendered by the High Court following the judgment under appeal, even though the S.L.Ps.filed in respect of them before this Court are yet to be registered or even if no S.L.P's are filed in respect 7 of them. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we make no order as to costs." 6. In that view of the matter, in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court, we are left with no other alternative but to dismiss the petitions. The petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp366697