1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.690/2010 ( Shri Ramesh S/o Ramsingh Gaur ..V/s.. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.J. Jichkar, A.G.P. for respondent no1. Mr. P.B. Patil, counsel for the respondent no.2 and 3. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & F.M. REIS JJ. DATE : 30 th APRIL, 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.G.P. for the respondent no.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3. In the present case respondent nos.2 and 3 proposes to acquire the land belonging to petitioner and respondent nos.4 and 5. by private negotiation. The amount of compensation to be paid by respondent nos.2 and 3 to the land owners was Rs.61,82,251/-. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, submitted that since there was an inter-se dispute between the land owners, acquisition of land by private negotiation could not be completed. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that petitioner and respondent nos.4 and 5 have now settled their inter-se dispute. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, states that if the land owners approaches respondent nos.2 and 3, necessary steps pursuing the private negotiation for 2 acquisition of land could be taken in accordance with law. In view of the above referred facts, it appears that the private negotiation initiated by respondent nos.2 and 3 could not be completed due to dispute between petitioner and respondent nos.4 and 5. However, it appears that the dispute between the land owners is amicably settled. Learned counsel for petitioner has already made a statement that the procedure of acquiring land by private negotiation could be completed at the earliest, provided the land owners approaches the respondent nos.2 and 3. With these observations nothing survives in the petition. Hence writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.