1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2459 0F 2007 Sopanrao Marotrao Bobde and others Ver sus The State of Maharashtra and others *** Mr. S. G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. D. R. Korde, A.G.P. for the Respondent / State. Mr. S. R. Bagal, Advocate for Respondent No.4. *** 1. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Chapalgaonkar for the Petitioner, Mr. S.R.Bagal, Advocate for Respondent No.4 and learned A.G.P. for the State and its authorities. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and decided finally with the consent of the parties. 3. Mr. Chapalgaonkar relies on a judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of "Girdharilal S/o Bhaulal Pardeshi V/s State of Maharashtra and others" reported in 1991 (2) Bom. C. R. 425. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 4. In the case on hand, Petitioners - nine in number, have approached to this Court seeking writ against Respondent No.4 to harvest and crush the sugarcane of the Petitioners within reserved area of the Respondent No.4 sugar factory. The petitioners have also prayed for direction against Respondent No.4 to make payment of compensation as assessed by the Petitioner within a period of three months. During the pendency of this writ petition, this Court had directed Respondent No.4 sugar factory to harvest the sugarcane of the petitioners. This order was passed on 17th May, 2007. It has been reported to us by the counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 that after this order, the petitioners were required to invoke contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Thereafter, Respondent No.4 has harvested the sugarcane of the petitioners. It has been clarified by the counsel appearing for the sugar factory, that fifty per cent sugarcane was harvested at the time of filing of the writ petition, and before the order passed by the Court. Sugarcane of the 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. petitioners, as of today, is not standing on the land and stands harvested. 5. In cited judgment, issue of around 278 cane growers was before the Court. Some members and some were non members. Mala-fides were alleged. This court has directed the Director of Sugar (Commissioner of Sugar, for the present) to hear the parties. Submit a report. This count, on the background obtaining in that case, ultimately awarded Rs.4,000/- per Acre compensation payable by the State Government. 6. Facts in the cited judgment are altogether different. It is true that in the present case, the petitioner-farmers have suffered hardships. Issue of damages requires evidence. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, at this stage, seeks liberty of this Court to enable all the Petitioners to resort appropriate remedy. After hearing counsel for Respondent No.4 and State, we are inclined to grant such liberty. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of with liberty in 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. favour of the Petitioners to resort appropriate remedy seeking damages against the Respondent sugar factory. In that case, all contentions are kept open for the Petitioners and Respondent No.4 as well. Rule discharged. No costs. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:13.11.2009 ans/2459