1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10355 OF 2004 Vaman Bal Patil (Rane) & Jagannath Vaman Patil (Rane) both deceased, through their legal heirs: Rajendra Jagannath Patil (Rane) and Ors. .......Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10356 OF 2004 Kanu Gopal Rane, since deceased, through legal heirs Bhagirathibai Kanu Rane & Ors. .......Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10379 OF 2004 Pandu Gowru Thakare .......Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents 2 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10380 OF 2004 Sitaram Govind Rane, since deceased, through his legal heirs Ramchandra Sitaram Rane & Ors. .......Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10404 OF 2004 Sitaram Govind Rane, since deceased, through his legal heirs Ramchandra Sitaram Rane & Ors. .......Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10432 OF 2004 Sakhubai Vinayak Rane (Patil) & Ors. .......Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10433 OF 2004 3 Krushanarao Balasaheb Deshmukh .......Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10436 OF 2004 Shankar Tukuram Rane (Patil), since deceased, through his legal heir Anant Vinayak Rane (Patil ) .......Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10437 OF 2004 Sakhubai Vinayak Rane (Patil) & Ors. .......Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10582 OF 2004 Sharad Vinayak Deshmukh .......Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents WITH 4 WRIT PETITION NO. 10583 OF 2004 Anil Vinayak Deshmukh .......Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10586 OF 2004 Anil Vinayak Deshmukh .......Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10587 OF 2004 Anil Vinayak Deshmukh .......Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10588 OF 2004 Anil Vinayak Deshmukh .......Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10589 OF 2004 5 Anil Vinayak Deshmukh .......Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10590 OF 2004 Anil Vinayak Deshmukh .......Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10591 OF 2004 Anil Vinayak Deshmukh .......Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10592 OF 2004 Anil Vinayak Deshmukh .......Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents IN ALL PETITIONS: 6 Mr. R.D. Soni instructed by M/s. Ram & Co. for the Petitioners Mr. P.M. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. CORAM: DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J., & S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE: JANUARY 13, 2005. P.C. 1. All these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Rule. Mr. P.M. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of Rule on behalf of the State. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing. 3. By these petitions, the petitioners are seeking a very limited relief whereby the petitioners' applications, which are pending before the second respondent – Collector, Raigad - under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”, for short), may be decided expeditiously. It appears that pertaining to the same notification, 7 which covers the lands involved in these petitions, on 6th December, 2000, the Reference Court has granted enhanced compensation. Based on the same, applications were filed under Section 28-A of the Act in February, 2001, which are within the prescribed period of ninety days. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we direct respondent No.2 – Collector, Raigad – to decide the said applications for enhancement of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. While doing so, the second respondent shall take into account the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Mangatu Ram, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2704, which is annexed as Exhibit ' B' to the petitions. 5. No further directions are necessary. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE 8 S.A. BOBDE, J.