1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3295 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhmeshwar Canal Division, Vaijapur, Tq. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Aurangabad and others. .. Respondents ... Mr. V.R. Sonvalkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for Resp. Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate for Resp. No.3. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 31ST AUGUST, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is 2 taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. 3. By present Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - acquiring body challenges the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 18-02-2005 under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. It is the case of the petitioner that without joining them as party and without any notice to them, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award under Section 28-A of the said Act, which is bad in law. In support of his contention, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied on unreported judgment of this Court in the matter of The Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhmeshwar Canal Division, District Aurangabad vs. The State of Maharashtra through Collector, 3 Aurangabad and others in Writ Petition No. 1597/2007 alongwith group matters dated 05-02-2008 (Coram : R.M. Borde, J.), in the matter of the Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhmeshwar Canal Division, Vaijapur District Aurangabad vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 1656/2007 dated 27-11-2008 (Coram : B.R. Gavai,J.) and unreported judgment in the matter of the Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhmeshwar Canal Division, Vaijapur vs. The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 4239/2006 dated 13-02-2009 (Coram : R.M. Borde, J.). 4. It is admitted fact in the present case, the petitioner was neither given notice nor opportunity of hearing by the Land Acquisition Officer i.e. respondent No. 2 before passing award. These facts are not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants as well as A.G.P. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original 4 claimants have no objection if the matter is remanded back to respondent No. 2 i.e. S.L.A.O. for deciding their applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, after adding the petitioner as party respondent. 5. In view of the said statement, the impugned award dated 18-02-2005 passed under Section 28- A of the Land Acquisition Act is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent No. 2 i.e. S.L.A.O. for deciding claimants application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, in accordance with law. Respondent No.3 original claimant is directed to join the petitioner as Respondent in application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. It is needless to state that respondent No. 2, before passing award, shall give opportunity of hearing and for filing their say to all the parties. Both the parties are directed to remain present before respondent No.2 S.L.A.O. on 25-09-2009. 5 6. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute in above terms. . Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/AUG09/wp3295.09