1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2730 OF 2009 Yogesh Subhash Shetkar & others ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ....Respondents. Shri. M.S. Patil Almalekar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri. K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : V. C. DAGA & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 15TH JULY, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Perused the petition. 3. Rule returnable forthwith. 4. The learned A.G.P. waives service on behalf of respondents. Heard finally by the consent of parties. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act to acquire his land was 2 initiated somewhere in the year 1994 and the possession thereof was taken on 1.12.2006 after finalization of the private negotiations. He further submits that on 15.6.1995 notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) was issued by the respondent No. 3 in the official Gazette and declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 19.6.1997. 6. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 12.03.2008. However, no statutory benefits contemplated under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act were awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to have made representation on 23rd January 2009 claiming statutory benefits under section 34 of the Act. The said representation is still pending. He, thus, submits that the respondents in general and the respondent No. 3, the Special Land Acquisition Officer in particular be directed to hear and dispose of the representation made by the petitioner by reasoned order following principles of natural justice. 7. For contra, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents submits that the reference made under section 18 of the Act at the instance of petitioner is still pending in the Civil Court. He, thus, submits that the same benefits can be claimed in the reference pending before the Civil Court. 8. In reply to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits 3 that what is being claimed through the representation is statutory benefit under section 34 of the Act, the entitlement of which is not in dispute. It needs no determination except arithmetical calculations. He further submits that if he succeeds in the representation made to the Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer, in that event, the petitioner would be entitled to claim monetory benefits pending reference under section 18 of the Act. In other words, he submits that if he is asked to approach the reference Court for the reliefs claimed in the representation made, then he will have to wait till the reference proceedings are decided which may take years together. He, thus, submits that this is a fit case wherein the directions as prayed needs to be issued. 9. After having heard both the parties, the rival contentions raised are no doubt attractive. However, without going in to the merits thereof workable order could be passed. 10. In the above view of the matter, We direct the Collector/ Special Land Acquisition Officer to decide the representation made by the petitioner dated 23rd January 2009 by reasoned order within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order after hearing the petitioner as well as the acquiring body. In the event, the petitioner succeeds, the petitioner would be entitled to reap the benefits thereof. Needless to say, in the event, the order is passed against the petitioner, it 4 would be open for the petitioner to claim statutory benefit under section 34 of the Act in the land acquisition reference proceedings which is already pending in the Civil Court. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. [ A.V. POTDAR, J. ] [ V.C. DAGA, J. ] ssc/wp2730.09