1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1893 OF 2009 1. Prakash Kashinath Hire, Age-38 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 2. Keshavrao Mahadu Khurde, Age-54 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 3. Sanjai Kautikrao Gaikwad, Age-30 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 4. Khushalrao Fakirrao Nalawade, Age-45 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 5. Ramdas Shankarrao Nalawade, Age-35 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 6. Laxman Dhondiba Gaikwad, Age-60 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 7. Kautik Laxman Gawande, Age-39 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 8. Suryabhan Shahuba Gawande, Age-65 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 9. Ambadas Khandu Nalawade, Age-33 years, Occu-Agriculturist, All are R/o.Ramnagar, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad PETITIONERS VERSUS 2 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 2. The Collector, Collector Office, Aurangabad. 3. The District Rehabilitation Officer, Collector Office, Aurangabad. 4. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division no.1, Marathwada Godavari Pat Bandhare Vikas Mahamandal, Sinchan Bhavan, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS Mr.N.J.Pahune Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, learned AGP for respondent no.1 to 3. Mr.N.R.Katneshwarkar h/f. Mr.S.G.Sangle, learned counsel for respondent no.4 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 01/10/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3 2. We have heard Shri.N.J.Pahune Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri.S.V.Kurundkar, learned AGP on behalf of respondent no.1 to 3 and Shri.Katneshwarkar h/f. Shri. Sangle, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 3. The petitioners by this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India pray for directing respondent no.4 Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No.1, Aurangabad to deposit the rehabilitation allowance of Rs.30,40,000/- in the office of respondent no.3 District Rehabilitation Officer, Collector Office within the particular period. In the light of the limited relief which the petitioners have sought for in this petition, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 4. The respondent no.4 in order to construct Anjana-Palshi Irrigation project at Kannad, and as a result of the aforesaid construction, village Palshi came to be sub-merged alongwith other villages. On the basis of the Government Resolution dated 09/01/2007, the project affected villagers submitted their claims for rehabilitation. Since the aforesaid claim of the petitioners has not been decided, the petitioners are before us in this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. 5. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, respondents no.1,2 and 3 have filed their affidavit in reply. At para no.4 of the affidavit in reply, it is stated that a list of 304 persons is 4 prepared and sent by the Sarpanch to the office of deponent and same was forwarded to the Executive Engineer i.e. respondent no.4. The list contain the names of those persons who are allottees of the plot and who are entitled for getting the benefit of the rehabilitation allowance for construction of their houses as per the Government Resolution. At para no.7 of the affidavit in reply, it is stated that the respondent no.3 has forwarded the list to the Tahsildar, Kannad and respondent no.4 and in turn asked some details from Tahsildar, Kannad in the context of some government orders. It is stated that the list submitted by the Sarpanch is under verification at the level of respondent no.3 and 4 and also Tahsildar, Kannad. The respondent no.4 had sought certain clarification from Tahsildar, Kannad and the Tahsildar, Kannad is in the process of submitting the necessary clarification. It is further stated at para no.8 of the petition that certain guidance has been sought from the Government through the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad requesting whether special assistance be given to the displaced persons. It is also stated that immediately on receipt of the guidelines from the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, the process of distribution of assistance would be started in consultation of the acquiring body i.e. respondent no.4 subject to the availability of the funds for disbursement. 6. The affidavit in reply submitted on behalf of respondent no.2 and 3 discloses that the distribution of the rehabilitation benefit is under consideration and would soon fructify in respect of 5 distribution of the same. In the light of that therefore, according to us it is not necessary to issue any directions as such save and except directing the respondents to expeditiously settle the proposals in respect of extending the rehabilitation benefit. 7. This petition is therefore allowed to the extent indicated above. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/OCT 2009/wp1893-09