(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.870 OF 2008 Smt.Rukmini Radheshyam Pal....Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors....Respondents Mr.A.C. Singh with Mr. D.R. Shah, for the Petitioners. Mr.Milind More, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Ms. S.M. Module, for respondent No.4. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. DATED: 28TH MARCH, 2008 DATED: 28TH MARCH, 2008 DATED: 28TH MARCH, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by Writ Petition No.790 of 2005. A learned Bench of this Court by order dated 27th June, 2005 noted that the petitioner had approached the Court with the prayer that the property be acquired after adopting suitable and proper procedure for acquisition of the land and structure therein. Certain directions were issued. The petition was disposed of on 27th June, 2005. 2. At Exhibit "M" to the petition there is a notice dated 29th September, 2006 invoking the emergency clause under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. From Exhibit "O" to the petition dated 23rd February, 2007 it is (-2-) apparent that the declaration under Section 6 has been issued. The area of the petitioners land is shown as 194 sq. meters of C.T.S. No.49/690 to 705 under Survey No. and Hissa No.11/2 (Pt.). In other words it is clear that the declaration has been made that the land is required for a public purpose. Subsequent thereto notice under Sections 9 and 10 has also been issued which can be seen by the petitioner’s communication of 21st March, 2007 addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.7. 3. The petitioners have approached this Court on the ground that the notice was pasted that demolition has been fixed on 2nd April, 2008 to 4th April, 2008. The order also notes that those parties who have received allotment of alternative tenements are requested to vacate their structure, otherwise they will be responsible for any action/inconveniecne caused to them on account of above stated action. 4. The law is well settled that it is open to the respondent State or its Authorities on invocation of the emergency clause to take possession even before an award is passed. But in those circumstances they have to comply with the requirement of Section 17(3)(A) of the Land (-3-) Acquisition Act or if there be any proposal to give alternate land/structure in lieu thereof. 5. Considering the above it is not open to the petitioners now to challenge the said acquisition as the declaration is already made. The declaration is also not challenged before this petition. It will, therefore, be open to the respondent authorities to take possession of the land provided they have complied with the requirement of Section 17(3)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. The other grievance of the petitioners is that the land which has not been acquired is sought to be taken possession of. It is not possible for us to go into that aspect of the matter in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. If the petitioner’s grievance is that any additional land is acquired other than which was notified it will be open to the petitioner to take proper steps according to law. With the above observations petition disposed of. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)