1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8665 OF 2009 1. Shankar s/o Vishwanathrao Agalave, Age 47 years, Occu.Agril., 2. Ashok s/o Vishwanath Agalave, Age 44 years, Occu.Agril., 3. Sangram s/o Sigram Agalave, Age 70 years, Occu.Agril., 4. Madhav s/o Kashinathrao Agalave, Age 29 years, Occu.Agril., 5. Sopan s/o Pundalik Hente, Age 35 years, Occu.Agril., 6. Namdeo s/o Naganna Bakkankar, Age 50 years, Occu.Agril., 7. Hanmabai w/o Madhavrao Kurre, Age 58 years, Occu.Agril., All R/o Khanapur, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Maharashtra State, Mumbai 2. The Collector, Nanded, District Nanded 3. The Executive Engineer, Lendi Project Division, Degloor, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded .. RESPONDENTS Shri S.R.Palnitkar, Advocate for petitioners Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 & 2 Shri P.G.Rodge, Advocate for respondent No.3 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 20th April, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to acquire the land of the petitioners situated at Gut Nos.16, 17 and 214 of village Khanapur, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded for rehabilitation of displaced persons of Lendi project. 3. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondent No.3 has filed its affidavit-in-reply. In the affidavit -in-reply, which is reproduced below, the respondent No.3 states thus: “ After completion of joint measurements of the said lands, statutory stages under sections 4, 6, 9 etc. will be followed and without following due procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, and without paying them compensation of the lands of 3 the petitioners proposed to be acquired, the said lands will not be taken in possession and as such, the apprehension of the petitioners that their lands will be acquired without following due procedure is not true and correct.” 4. As per the aforesaid affidavit-in-reply, the respondent No.3 states that the lands of the petitioners would not be acquired except in accordance with law and the petitioners would not be deprived of the possession of the lands unless the compensation is paid to the petitioners. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. In the light of the said statement, Shri Palnitkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the grievance of the petitioners stands satisfied. 5. Accepting the aforesaid statement, therefore, we allow this petition and make Rule absolute in terms of the statement of respondent No.3 referred to above, with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/8665.09wp)