Bombay High Court
Bhagauji Nathaji Maind And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 3 July, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 BOM 1850
Author: Shrikant D. Kulkarni
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant D. Kulkarni
1 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5250 OF 2020
WITH
CA/5136/2020 IN WP/5250/2020 WITH CA/5553/2020 IN WP/5250/2020
01. Bhagauji S/o Nathaji Maind,
Age: 49 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
02. Shivaji S/o Shahaji Devkar,
Age: 38 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
03. Balaji S/o Shahaji Devkar,
Age: 36 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
04. Radhakisan S/o Dnyandeo Talekar,
Age: 56 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
05. Parwati W/o Suryabhan Mane,
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
06. Chabubai W/o Kondiba Nimbalkar,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
07. Akshay S/o Ankush Nimbalkar,
Age: 22 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
08. Savita W/o Radhakisan Kale,
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
2 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
09. Tushar S/o Subhash Nimbalkar,
Age: 21 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
10. Chandrabhan S/o Natha Mane,
Age: 56 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
11. Eknath S/o Lakshman Mane,
Age: 46 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
12. Sanjay S/o Lakshmanrao Kale,
Age: 48 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
13. Anantrao S/o Patilba Bhokare,
Age: 72 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
14. Kantilal S/o Belaji Gaikwad,
Age: 57 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
15. Bhanudas S/oEknath Ingale,
Age: 27 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
16. Latabai W/o Bhaguji Maind,
Age: 42 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
17. Kalyan S/o Babasaheb Subugade,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
18. Mandabai W/o Kantilal Nimbalkar,
Age: 48 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
3 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
19. Anil S/o Bhaurao Ratnaparkhe,
Age: 50 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
20. Rahul S/o Anil Ratnaparkhe,
Age: 30 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
21. Annasaheb S/o Bhaurao Bathe,
Age: 37 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Dadhegaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
22. Sitaram S/o Bhaurao Ratnaparkhe,
Age: 62 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Dadhegaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
23. Nilkanth S/o. Sitaram Ratnaparkhe,
Age: 243Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Dadhegaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
24. Shobha S/o Ramdas Ratnaparkhe,
Age: 50 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Dadhegaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
25. Somnath S/o Sitaram Ratnaparkhe,
Age: 42 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Dadhegaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
26. Abhimanyu S/o Ramdas Ratnaparkhe,
Age: 22 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Dadhegaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
27. Arun S/o Bhaurao Ratnaparkhe
Age: 53 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Dadhegaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
28. Shakuntala W/o Uttamrao Rokade
Age: 65 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Shahapur, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
4 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
29. Shrikant S/o Uttamrao Rokade,
Age: 35 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Dadhegaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
30. Maharudra S/o Bhaurao Patole
Age: 34 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Dadhegaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
31. Narayan S/o Vishwanath Dhone
Age: 43 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Dhakalgaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
32. Babulal S/o Bhaguji Bahmane
Age: 51 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Dhakalgaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
33. Shantabai W/o Vitthal Chavan,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Tanda, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
34. Anil S/o Vitthal Chavan
Age: 37 Years, Occu: Agr1i,
R/o. Math-Tanda, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
35. Anita W/o Vitthal Chavan
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Tanda, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
36. Vitthal S/o Nuraji Chavan
Age: 67 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Tanda, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
... Petitioners.
Versus
01. The State of Maharashtra,
Secretary (Works),
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
5 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
02. The Chief Engineer (NH),
Public Works Department,
Room No.526, 5th Floor,
Kokan Bhavan,
Navi Mumbai - 400614.
03. The Collector, Jalna,
Collector Office, Jalna.
04. Executive Engineer,
National Highway Division,
Near Durga Mata Mandir,
Public Works Area,
Jalna - 431203.
05. The Competent Authority &
Sub Divisional Officer,
Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
06. The Tahasildar,
Tahasil Office, Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
07. Executive Engineer,
National Highway Divisional
PWD Campus, Padampura,
Aurangabad.
08. State Construction Integrated Works
V.P. Sethi and Mehara (Joint Venture),
Plot No.4, CTS No.343/B-II, Sambhaji-
Nagar, New Mondha Road,
Jalna - 431203. ... Respondents.
....
Mr. S.S. Tope, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 6.
Mr. D.G. Nagode, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2, 5 and 7.
Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
Mr. S.K. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.8.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 6155 OF 2020
01. Nandkishor S/o Mandanlal Jethliya
Age: 54 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Dhakalgaon, Gut No.127, 128
and 129, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
6 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
02. Varsha W/o. Nandkishor Jethliya,
Age: 45 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Dhakalgaon, Gut No.127, 128
and 129, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna. ... Petitioners.
Versus
01. The State of Maharashtra,
Secretary (Works),
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
02. The Chief Engineer (NH),
Public Works Department,
Room No.526, 5th Floor,
Kokan Bhavan,
Navi Mumbai - 400614.
03. The Collector, Jalna,
Collector Office, Jalna.
04. Executive Engineer,
National Highway Division,
Near Durga Mata Mandir,
Public Works Area,
Jalna - 431203.
05. The Competent Authority &
Sub Divisional Officer,
Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
06. The Tahasildar,
Tahasil Office, Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
07. Executive Engineer,
National Highway Divisional
PWD Campus, Padampura,
Aurangabad.
08. State Construction Integrated Works
V.P. Sethi and Mehara (Joint Venture),
Plot No.4, CTS No.343/B-II, Sambhaji-
Nagar, New Mondha Road,
Jalna - 431203.
09. National Highway Authority of India,
Through its Project Director,
B-23, Near Kamgar Chowk,
CIDCO, N-4, Aurangabad - 431001. ... Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
7 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
....
Mr. S.S. Tope, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 6.
Mr. A.B. Dhongade, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2, 5, 7 and 9.
Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
Mr. S.K. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.8.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5997 OF 2020
01. Changdev S/o Narayanrao Dhawale,
Age: 61 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
02. Gorakh S/o Sahebrao Kawale,
Age: 52 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
03. Shamsundar S/o Prabhakar Dhawale,
Age: 36 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
04. Baburao Umaji Kawale,
Age: 58 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
05. Kakasaheb S/o Umaji Kawale,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
06. Raghunath S/o Sheshrao Kawale,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
07. Urmila Dnyeshwar Avchar,
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
08. Suryakant S/o Dadarao Kawale,
Age: 77 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
8 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
09. Gangubai W/o Bhaurao Kawale,
Age: 65 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
10. Baliram S/o Tulshiram Jige,
Age: 60 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
11. Uttamrao S/o Damodharrao Padul,
Age: 56 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Antarwala, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
12. Mandakini W/o Bhaskar Padul,
Age: 50 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Antarwala, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
13. Rameshwar S/o Panditrao Padul,
Age: 36 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Antarwala, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
14. Mangal W/o Ganeshrao Padul,
Age: 36 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Antarwala, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
15. Nandkishor S/o Vaijinath Suryavanshi,
Age: 38 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Antarwala, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
16. Sandip S/o Achutrao Hiwale,
Age: 45 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Antarwala, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
17. Vijaykumar S/o Mangilal Dayama,
Age: 67 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Samangao, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
18. Dinesh S/oDadaraoKawale,
Age: 50 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna. ... Petitioners.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
9 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
Versus
01. The State of Maharashtra,
Secretary (Works),
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
02. The Chief Engineer (NH),
Public Works Department,
Room No.526, 5th Floor,
Kokan Bhavan,
Navi Mumbai - 400614.
03. The Collector, Jalna,
Collector Office, Jalna.
04. Executive Engineer,
National Highway Division,
Near Durga Mata Mandir,
Public Works Area,
Jalna - 431203.
05. The Competent Authority &
Sub Divisional Officer,
Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
06. The Tahasildar,
Tahasil Office, Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
07. Executive Engineer,
National Highway Divisional
PWD Campus, Padampura,
Aurangabad.
08. State Construction Integrated Works
V.P. Sethi and Mehara (Joint Venture),
Plot No.4, CTS No.343/B-II, Sambhaji-
Nagar, New Mondha Road,
Jalna - 431203. ... Respondents.
....
Mr. S.S. Tope, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 6.
Mr. Amol Patale, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2, 5 and 7.
Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
Mr. S.K. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.8.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
10 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5826 OF 2020
01. Rajeshwar S/o Naryanrao Jige,
Age: 44 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
02. Rukhminibai W/o Shrimantrao Jige
Age: 50 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
03. Gajanan S/o Limbaji Jige,
Age: 38 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
04. Manjit S/oLimbaji Jige,
Age: 44 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
05. Sandeep S/o Limbaji Jige,
Age: 42 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
06. Sitaram S/o Asraji More,
Age: 68 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
07. Sukhdeo S/o Krushnaji Khadekar,
Age: 52 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
08. Ramnath S/o Bapu Gawali
Age: 60 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Golapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
09. Narsing S/o Kondiba More,
Age: 49 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Golapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
11 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
10. Babasaheb S/o Pralhad Gawali
Age: 30 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Golapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
11. Paraji S/o Shesherao Madan,
Age: 68 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
12. Bhagwat S/o Manjitrao More,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Golapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
13. Dnyaneshwar Radhakisan Jige,
Age: 45 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
14. Suresh S/o Sahebrao Jige,
Age: 38 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
15. Rangnath S/o Sahebrao Jige,
Age: 46 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
16. Kamlabai W/o Sahebrao Jige,
Age: 65 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
17. Baliram S/o Vitthal Gende,
Age: 60 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
18. Kausalyabai W/o Janardan Jige,
Age: 72 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
19. Janardan S/o Kaduba Jige,
Age: 73 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
12 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
20. Sunita S/o Chandrakant More,
Age: 45 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Golapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
21. Babasaheb S/o Jija More,
Age: 70 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Golapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
22. Laxmikant S/o Sakharam Khedkar
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Golapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
23. Kalinda W/o Ganesh Jige,
Age: 45 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimplgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
24. Shantabai W/o Janardan Jige,
Age: 74 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimplgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
25. Shila W/o Baban Jige
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimplgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
26. Kalyanrao S/o Bhagwanrao Jige,
Age: 65 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimplgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
27. Pradeep S/o Pandharinath Jige,
Age: 30 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimplgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
28. Sindhubai W/o Limbaji Jige,
Age: 60 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimplgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
29. Dnyaneshwar S/o Krushnaji Khadekar,
Age: 50 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Golapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
13 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
30. Dnyandeo S/o Punjaram Khadekar,
Age: 60 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimplgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
31. Kesarbai W/o Vitthalrao Jige,
Age: 65 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimplgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
32. Jayashree W/o Subhash Jige,
Age: 27 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimplgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
33. Parmeshwar S/o Panditrao Gawali,
Age: 48 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Golapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
34. Narayan S/o Satwaji Jige,
Age: 74 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimplgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
35. Anna S/o Asaraji More,
Age: 70 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Golapangare, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
36. Pralhad S/o Panditrao More,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Golapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
37. Badrinarayan S/o Panditrao More,
Age: 48 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Golapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
38. Subhadrabai W/o Panditrao More,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Goplapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
39. Venkat S/o Bajirao Jige,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Goplapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
14 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
40. Pramila W/o Bhagwanrao Kawale,
Age: 56 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Goplapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
41. Kishor S/o Bhagwanrao Kawale,
Age: 32 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Goplapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
42. Vikas S/o Bagwanrao Kawale,
Age: 27 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Goplapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
43. Gorakhnath S/o SheshraoKawale,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Goplapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
44. Narayan S/o Laxman Kawale,
Age: 54 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Goplapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
45. Dnyaneshwar S/o Laxman Kawale,
Age: 54 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Goplapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
46. Shobha W/o Dnyaneshwar Kawale,
Age: 50 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Goplapangari, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
47. Vimal W/o Raosaheb Jige,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
48. Ramesh S/o Laxmanrao Gadhe,
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
49. Raibabi W/o Vishwanath Ghule,
Age: 67 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
15 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
50. Tukaram S/o Pandurang More,
Age: 67 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Math-Pimpalgaon, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna.
51. Santosh S/o Bapusaheb Solanke,
Age: 49 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
52. Mangalabai Bapusaheb Solanke,
Age: 75 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
53. Jairaj S/o Bapusaheb Solanke,
Age: 45 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
54. Eknath S/o Laxman Pawar,
Age: 60 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Parner, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
55. Pralhad S/o Meherban Jadhav
Age: 48 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Tambad,
Dist. Jalna. ... Petitioners
Versus
01. The State of Maharashtra,
Secretary (Works),
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
02. The Chief Engineer (NH),
Public Works Department,
Room No.526, 5th Floor,
Kokan Bhavan,
Navi Mumbai - 400614.
03. The Collector, Jalna,
Collector Office, Jalna.
04. Executive Engineer,
National Highway Division,
Near Durga Mata Mandir,
Public Works Area,
Jalna - 431203.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
16 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
05. The Competent Authority &
Sub Divisional Officer,
Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
06. The Tahasildar,
Tahasil Office, Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
07. Executive Engineer,
National Highway Divisional
PWD Campus, Padampura,
Aurangabad.
08. State Construction Integrated Works
V.P. Sethi and Mehara (Joint Venture),
Plot No.4, CTS No.343/B-II, Sambhaji-
Nagar, New Mondha Road,
Jalna - 431203. ... Respondents
....
Mr. S.S. Tope, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 6.
Mr. R.B. Bhosale, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2, 5 and 7.
Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
Mr. S.K. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.8.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4937 OF 2020
WITH
CA/5114/2020 IN WP/4937/2020
01. Narayan S/o Shivajirao Wayal,
Age: 53 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
02. Pandurang W/o Bhaurao Mangdare,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
03. Subhashrao S/o Ramchandr Mangdare,
Age: 72 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
04. Rameshwar S/o Kisanrao Gawade,
Age: 50 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
17 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
05. Shrimant S/o Rambhau Palkar,
Age: 50 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
06. Ashok S/o Rambhau Palkar,
Age: 60 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
07. Anand S/o Ambadas Pawar,
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
08. Vijay S/o Ambadas Pawar,
Age: 42 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
09. Shivajirao S/o Pralhadrao Atole,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
10. Sau. Latabai W/o Shivajirao Atole,
Age: 50 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
11. Rajendra S/o Lahurao Kale,
Age: 50 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
12. Umesh S/o Lahurao Kale,
Age: 45 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
13. Ganesh S/o Shivajirao Nazarkar,
Age: 37 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
14. Pratibha W/o Bhausaheb Nazarkar,
Age: 34 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
18 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
15. Ramdas S/o Dadarao Kale,
Age: 42 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
16. Sambhaji S/o Bapurao Kale,
Age: 32 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
17. Sau. Premila W/o Ambadas Pawar,
Age: 65 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
18. Madhav S/o Ambadas Pawar,
Age: 35 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
19. Vitthal S/o Dadarao Kale,
Age: 51 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
20. Annasaheb S/o Pandurang Pawar,
Age: 45 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
21. Ramlal S/o Arjunrao Gadhave,
Age: 51Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
22. Raosaheb S/o Ramchandra Mangdare,
Age: 72 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
23. Baban S./o Bhaurao Mangdare,
Age: 60 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
24. Suresh S/o Rajendra Munde,
Age: 53 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
19 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
25. Pandharinath S/o Raghoji Khatke,
Age: 60 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
26. Arun S./o Laxman Jadhav,
Age: 26 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna.
27. Shantabai W/o Dnyandeo Khatke
Age: 70 Years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Wadigordi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna. ... Petitioners.
Versus
01. The State of Maharashtra,
Secretary (Works),
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
02. The Chief Engineer (NH),
Public Works Department,
Room No.526, 5th Floor,
Kokan Bhavan,
Navi Mumbai - 400614.
03. The Collector, Jalna,
Collector Office, Jalna.
04. Executive Engineer,
National Highway Division,
Near Durga Mata Mandir,
Public Works Area,
Jalna - 431203.
05. The Competent Authority &
Sub Divisional Officer,
Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
06. The Tahasildar,
Tahasil Office, Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
07. Executive Engineer,
National Highway Divisional
PWD Campus, Padampura,
Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
20 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
08. State Construction Integrated Works
V.P. Sethi and Mehara (Joint Venture),
Plot No.4, CTS No.343/B-II, Sambhaji-
Nagar, New Mondha Road,
Jalna - 431203. ... Respondents.
....
Mr. S.S. Tope, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 6.
Mr. Amol Patale, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2, 5 and 7.
Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
Mr. S.K. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.8.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 7270 OF 2020
WITH
CA/3480/2021 IN WP/7270/2020
01. Baliram S/o Tukaram Khatake,
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Wadigodri, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
02. Kacharulal S/o Ramvilas Zavar,
Age: 65 Years, Occu: Agriculture / Business,
R/o. Dhakalgaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
03. Shaikh Salim S./o Shaikh Ibrahim
Age: 50Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Dhakalgaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
04. Dilip S/o Ganpat Chatre,
Age: 50 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Dhakalgaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
05. Sanjay S/o Dagadu Rathod,
Age: 24 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Dhakalgaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
06. Arjun S/o Shahu Rathod
Age: 49 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Dhakalgaon, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
21 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
07. Santosh S/o Sahebrao Pilange,
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Zirpi, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
08. Nanasaheb S/o Sahebrao Pilange,
Age: 38 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Zirpi, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
09. Sumanbai W/o Sahebrao Pilange,
Age: 57 Years, Occu: Housewife / Agriculture,
R/o. Zirpi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
10. Dinesh S/o Kashinath Shingare,
Age: 30 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Zirpi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
11. Shaikh Sikandar S/o Shaikh Abdul Raheman,
Age: 60 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Lalwadi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
12. Shaikh Khajamia S/o Shaikh Sikandar,
Age: 28 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Lalwadi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
13. Shaikh Gulab S/o Shaikh Sikandar,
Age: 23 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Lalwadi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
14. ShaikhMehboobS/o Shaikh Sikandar,
Age: 23 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Lalwadi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna
15. Kashinath S/o Punjaram Shingare,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Zirpi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
16. Yamunabai W/o Kashinath Shingare,
Age: 48 Years, Occu: Housewife / Agriculture,
R/o. Zirpi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
17. Kapurchand S/o Jayram Jadhav
Age: 57 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ramnagar, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
18. Govardhan S/o Jayram Jadhav,
Age: 54 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ramnagar, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
22 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
19. Anis S/o Dadabhai Shaikh,
Age: 33 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Lalwadi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
20. Unus S/o Dadabhai Shaikh,
Age: 30 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Lalwadi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
21. Shaikh Pashumiya S/o Shaikh Abdul Raheman,
Age: 70 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Lalwadi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
22. Baban S/o Genuji Shingare,
Age: 60 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Zirpi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
23. Parasnath S/o Raghunath Wakhare,
Age: 68 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Zirpi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
24. Sangita W/o Rajendra Rathod,
Age: 45 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ramnagar, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna
25. Satish S/o Bhagwanrao Jadhav,
Age: 42 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Zirpi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
26. Bhagirath S/o Timbak Maind,
Age: 57 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Zirpi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
27. Dnyandev S/o Bajanna Bhavar,
Age: 48 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Zirpi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
28. Vishwambar S/o Harichandra Markad,
Age: 57 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
29. Mahesh S/o Vishwambar S/o. Markad,
Age: 23 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
30. Jaya W/o Bhushan Kala,
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Housewife / Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
31. Dilip S/o Changuji Hamne,
Age: 50 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Zirpi, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
23 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
32. Ambadas S/o Ramchandra Rathod,
Age: 65 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ramnagar, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
33. Shaikh Wajir S/o Shaikh Abdul Raheman,
Age: 75 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Lalwadi, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
34. Avianash S/o Gulab Rathod,
Age: 30 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ramnagar, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
35. Sachin S/o Gulab Rathod,
Age: 28 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ramnagar, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
36. Ashok S/o Rambhau Gadhekar,
Age: 30 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Vasant Nagar, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
37. Vishal S/o Sanjay Gadhekar,
Age: 28 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Vasant Nagar, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
38. Shaikh Amir S/o Shaikh Abdul Raheman,
Age: 65 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Lalwadi, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
39. Rajendra S/o Raghunath Bhosale,
Age: 43 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
40. Shivaji S/o Raghunath Bhosale,
Age: 48 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
41. Sangita W/o Rameshwar Rajgude,
Age: 48 Years, Occu: Housewife / Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
42. Babu S/o Balchand Rathod,
Age: 57 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
43. Ashok S/o Bhagwanrao Jadhav,
Age: 32 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Zirpi, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
24 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
44. Machindra S/o Kacharu Shingare,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Grinpark, C-wing, 107,
Kacheri Road, Mangaon, Dist. Raigad.
45. Baban S/o Kacharu Shingare,
Age: 52 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Grinpark, C-wing, 107,
Kacheri Road, Mangaon, Dist. Raigad.
46. Dilip S/o Ramchandra Chungade,
Age: 45 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
47. Sanjay S/o Ramchandr Chungade,
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
48. Jivan S/on Ramchandra Chungade,
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
49. Rupchand S/o Pandusing Chungade,
Age: 30 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
50. Kailash S/o Tarachand Chungade,
Age: 35Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
51. Priti W/o Mukesh Khanchandani,
Age: 30 Years, Occu: Housewife,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
52. Pinki W/o Sunil Khanchandani,
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Housewife
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
53. Sunil S/o Hetchand Khanchandani,
Age: 43 Years, Occu: Agril. / Business,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
54. Dilip S/o Sonaji Kharat,
Age: 49 Years, Occu: Agril. / Business,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
55. Yashoda Shankar,
Age: Major, Occu: Housewife,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
25 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
56. Koushalya W/. Vitthal Dewde,
Age: Major, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
57. Imran S/o Sahebkha Patha,
Age: Major, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
58. Sushyam S/o Govindrao Diwan,
Age: Major, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna.
59. Dilip S/oRambhau Paulbudhe,
Age: 52 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Tq. Jalna. ... Petitioners.
Versus
01. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways,
Govt. of India, Delhi.
02. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Chief Secretary,
State of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
03. The Chief Engineer (National Highway),
Public Works Regional Department,
Room No.526, 5th Floor,
Kokan Bhavan,
Navi Mumbai - 400614.
04. The Superintending Engineer,
(National Highway)
Aurangabad Circle, Bandkam Bhavan,
Adalat Road, Aurangabad - 431001.
05. The Executive Engineer (National Highway),
Public Works Dept., Office, Jalna.
06. The Collector, Jalna,
Collector Office, Jalna.
07. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sub-Divisional Office, Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
08. The Tahasildar, Ambad,
Tahasil Office, Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
26 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
09. State Construction Integrated Works
V.P. Sethi and Mehara (Joint Venture),
Plot No.4, CTS No.343/B-II, Sambhaji-
Nagar, New Mondha Road,
Jalna - 431203. ... Respondents.
....
Mr. Deepak K. Rajput, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2, 6 and 8.
Mr. D.G. Nagode, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7.
Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
Mr. S.K. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.9.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4694 OF 2021
01. Parmeshwar S/o. Kushaba Namade,
Age: 48 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Indewadi, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
02. Gajanan S/o Keshav Shinde,
Age: 37 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Indewadi, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
03. Yashwant S/o Rangnath Shinde,
Age: 37 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o. Indewadi, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. ... Petitioners.
Versus
01. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways,
Govt. of India, Delhi.
02. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Chief Secretary,
State of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
03. The Chief Engineer (National Highway),
Public Works Regional Department,
Room No.526, 5th Floor,
Kokan Bhavan,
Navi Mumbai - 400614.
04. The Superintending Engineer,
(National Highway)
Aurangabad Circle, Bandkam Bhavan,
Adalat Road, Aurangabad - 431001.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
27 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
05. The Executive Engineer (National Highway),
Public Works Dept., Office, Jalna.
06. The Collector, Jalna,
Collector Office, Jalna.
07. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sub-Divisional Office, Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
08. The Tahasildar, Ambad,
Tahsil Office, Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
09. State Construction Integrated Works
V.P. Sethi and Mehara (Joint Venture),
Plot No.4, CTS No.343/B-II, Sambhaji-
Nagar, New Mondha Road,
Jalna - 431203. ... Respondents.
....
Mr. Deepak K. Rajput, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2, 6 and 8.
Mr. Amol Patale, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7.
Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
Mr. S.K. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.9.
....
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVATION : 11.06.2021
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.07.2021
JUDGMENT :( PER SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. )
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the sides, heard finally at admission stage.
2. This bunch of writ petitions can be disposed of by common judgment and order by looking to the similar facts and question of law involved therein.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
28 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
3. Factual matrix -
(a) The petitioners are resident of different villages situated in Taluka Jalna and Ambad, District Jalna. They own agricultural lands adjacent to National Highway No. 753H (previously known as State Highway No. 176). According to the petitioners, in their agricultural lands, they have their residential houses, wells, fruit trees, bore-well etc. which are also adjacent to the National Highway No. 753H.
(b) The road in question was a small road earlier and it came to be converted into State Highway without payment of any compensation to the petitioners while expansion of State Highway.
(c) It is the stand of the petitioners that the existing width of the road is about 12 meters. The respondents have recently issued a letter of award and started expansion of the road/up-gradation of the road to 30 meters without acquisition of land. The respondents are trying to take forcible possession of the lands of the petitioners. The respondent-
authorities have cautioned to the petitioners even to use police force while taking possession. The petitioners have made it clear that they are not opposing for the road widening/up-gradation of road in question but the authority should acquire their respective lands for up-gradation of the roads as per due procedure of law. The authorities while converting the small road into said Highway No. 176, not initiated acquisition proceeding and thereby deprived of compensation of their lands which were acquired. The respondents have started up-gradation of the road in question from Sillod to Wadigodri in a phase-wise manner. The petitioners are ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 ::: 29 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
concerned with the phase of Dhangar Pimpri to Wadigodri for which the authorities are attempting to take the forceful possession of their lands under the pretext of resolution regarding adjacent lands of road which need not require acquisition. The stand taken by the authorities is not genuine.
(d) According to the petitioners, the Government or the State authorities cannot take possession of land of any land owner without following due procedure of law. Article 300-A of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. The action initiated by the respondent-authorities thereby taking forcible possession of the lands belonging to the petitioners for road widening by showing the Government Resolution is contrary to the provision of Article 300-A. All the petitioners are similarly situated. It is their common grievance and apprehension that the respondent- authorities may take forcible possession of their respective lands without following due process of law. In the above premise, they have rushed this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The stand of the Chief Engineer (National Highway, P.W.D., Executive Engineer, National Highway Division/ Union of India (Respondent Nos. 2,4 and 7)
(e) According to respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 7, the road in question is a part of National Highway No. 753H in view of Central Government Notification/Gazette dated 06.02.2018. Previously, the said road was ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 ::: 30 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
known as State Highway and it was under the control of Government of Maharashtra and under the jurisdiction of Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Jalna. The road in question is in a possession of the Government since last more than 40 years. The disputed road was a State Highway No. 50A and in the year 1981-2001, it was declared as State Highway No. 176 and in the year 2001-2021, same is declared as major State Highway No.13. The said major State Highway is declared 30 meter road in the Maharashtra Gazette in the year 1996. The State Government has issued Government Resolution to that effect dated 26.10.2010. It is the stand of the Union Government that the petitioners cannot claim any compensation after lapse of 20 years in respect of acquisition of their lands while expanding the road as State Highway in view of decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar reported in 1995 (4) SCC 683.
(f) It is the stand of the Union of India/Central Authorities that they are not constructing new road but improving the road in existence with same alignment while converting the same into National Highway standard. The road construction is within the Right Of Way (ROW) i.e. 30 meters (100 feet only) as per the Road Development Plan which consist two lane road only. Expansion of the road into National Highway standard is for the benefit of the adjacent farmers to transport agricultural produce from remote area and nearby rural areas to urban areas. It may boost the economy of that area. This will improve connectivity to villages with cities, medical facilities, education etc. ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 ::: 31 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
(g) It is further stand of the Central authority that it is an attempt made by the petitioners to seek compensation in respect of lands which were already used for expansion of the road more than 56 years back. As per the scales of village maps of Shahpur, Dadhegaon, etc, the width of the road is 30 meters everywhere and as per topographical sheet of Survey of India department, survey made in 1968 to 1969 and revised in the year 1971, the existing road has been shown in the road development plan published by the Government of Maharashtra for the year 1961-1981 (SH-50A), 1981-2001(SH-176), 2001-2021 (MSH-13) of then Aurangabad District. The above said road is part and parcel of the Sillod - Bhokardan, Hasnabad - Rajur, Bhavanpangari - Jalna - Ambad-Wadigodri and numbered as State Highway No. 176 in the road development plan for the year 1981-2001. Now road is upgraded as a National Highway 753H on 06.02.2018. The said road was in possession of the P.W.D. Division Aurangabad and later on came to be transferred to Jalna and further to National Highway Division, Aurangabad.
(h) It is further contention of the authority that the construction of the road is on existing road only. The petitioners are not entitled to get any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11112/2017 vide order dated 13.09.2017. The construction of road is within the parameters of the existing road and if the work is stopped, the authorities may put to huge loss. The work of construction of road is being carried out within ROW only, as such, the question of acquisition of adjacent lands for construction of road does not arise. The petitions devoid of merits. ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
32 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
Stand of the State Government/State Authority
(i) It is the stand of the State Authority/State Government that road in question was known as State Highway No. 50A in view of Notification dated 19.04.1967 issued by the State Government. The road was known as Jalna - Wadigodri. In the revised development plan for the year 1981-2001, the State Highway No. 50A came to be re-numbered as State Highway No. 176. The revised road development plan for the year 1981-2001 indicates that State Highway No. 176 already exists. As per the standard width of the road ranges from 30-46 meters if the road is passing through open and agricultural area. In the revised development plan for the year 2000-2021 of Jalna District, the State Highway No. 176 is upgraded to State Highway No. 13. The width of the existing road is upto 30 meters and that fact was not disputed for 50 years. The work of up-gradation of the road is being carried out within 30 meters by the authorities. The village map of the Wadigodri also shows existence of road which is prepared by D.S.L.R, Ambad. As per the scales, the width of the road as on today is of 30 meters width. The village maps of Dakalgaon, Dadegaon and Shahpur also shows existence of road. The road in question passes adjacent to the lands of the petitioners, but the State Authorities/National Highway authorities are carrying out their work within their limits. The existence of 30 meters width of road in village Vadi Godri and other villages particularly adjacent to the lands of the petitioners cannot be disputed. The petitioners are not in possession of road area i.e. 30 meters width. The water supply pipeline from Sinhagad ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 ::: 33 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
to Wadigodri, Dadegaon, Dakalgaon, Shahpur, Math Tanda, Ambad and Jalna was laid down by Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran by considering existing width of the road of 30 meters. The communication to that effect within the authorities is placed on record and that may be taken into consideration which supported case of the authorities.
(j) It is further stand of the authorities that various persons had sought permission from the authorities before starting their units like petrol pump or any other work/O.F.C. cable which shows existing width of the road is 30 meters. That is why permission was sought. The District Collector, Jalna has granted No Objection to the concerned by taking into consideration existing width of the road as 30 meters, and therefore, the petitioners cannot dispute the width of the road as 30 meters.
(k) It is stand of the State Authorities that as on today, National Highway Authorities are carrying out the work within 30 meters which is the width of the State Highway No.176. The authorities are upgrading the road within the limits of 30 meters width and not beyond that. It is denied by the authorities that the width of the road is 12 meters.
(l) According to the State Authorities, petitions are barred by principles of delay and laches. It is also hit by law of limitation. The work of the road is also commenced and near completion. For the public at large, it is necessary to complete the remaining work.
4. Heard Mr S.S. Tope, Mr Deepak A. Rajput and Mr A.R. Lukhe, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr D.R. Nagode, learned Standing ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 ::: 34 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
Counsel for Union of India/National Highway Authority, Mr A.R. Kale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State/State Authorities, Mr N.T. Tribhuwan, learned counsel appearing for the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division and Mr S.K. Kadam, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8/State Construction integrated works (joint venture) at length.
5. Perused the documents, papers and affidavits relied upon by the respective parties.
Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the lands owned by the petitioners are adjacent to State Highway No. 176 now converted in the National Highway No. 573H. The width of the State Highway is 12 meters including side margins. The authorities are trying to enhance width of the road from 12 meters to 30 meters without acquisition of lands of adjacent land owners. The respondent-authorities are depriving the petitioners from their legal possession of respective lands without any compensation. The petitioners are not opposing for expansion of the road/up-gradation of the road but insist to follow due process of law while expansion of the road. The petitioners are having their houses, wells, bore-well, food trees, etc. adjacent to road in question if road is upgraded and width is expanded, the petitioners may suffer huge loss. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would not be proper for the State Government/Central Government Authority to take possession of any land owner without following due process of law. ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
35 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
The action of the respondent authorities thereby taking forceful possession of the lands of the petitioners for widening of the road is a clear breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. They submitted that the petitioners have right to get fair compensation in view of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Mere change of the status of the road does not give any permission to the authorities to take possession of the land of the adjacent land owners without following due process of law.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners have placed their reliance on following citations :-
(I) Tukaram Kana Joshi and others Vs. M.I.D.C. and others reported in 2013 (3) Bom. Cases Reporter 103 (II) Pradyumna Mukund Kokil Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2015 (4) All Mah. Reporter 983 (III) Vidyadevi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in Civil Appeal No. 60-61-2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) 467/468 of 2020 at D. No. 36919 of 2018 decided on 8th January, 2020 (IV) Writ Petition No. 4717/2019 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 30th April, 2020 (V) Vinayakrao Ramrao Gaike and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1988 Mah. Law Reporter 797 (Aurangabad Bench) (VI) Writ Petition No. 6619/2020 (Sitabai Vitthal Mandlik and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra with connected matters decided by this Court vide order dated 14 th December, 2020.
The learned counsel for the petitioners also invited our attention to the copies of the documents and papers relied upon by the petitioners in respective writ petitions in support of their claim.
Submissions learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India, National Highway and learned Government Pleader for the State of Maharashtra/State Authority
8. It is submitted that the authorities are not constructing new ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 ::: 36 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
road but improving the same alignment. It is up-gradation of the State Highway into National Highway standard. The road in question was previously known as Road No. 176. Subsequently, known as Major Highway State Road No. 13 and now, it is known as National Highway No. 753H. The width of the road in question has been shown as 30 meters everywhere and even in the Survey of India Department and various maps prepared by the State authority. The road construction is within the 30 meters as per the road development plan. Since the up- gradation of the road is being done within 30 meters, no question of acquisition of land arises as contended by the petitioners. They submitted that it is an attempt made by the petitioners to seek compensation in respect of the lands which were acquired long back for conversion of road as State Highway. They have relied upon the Government Notification dated 26th October, 2010.
9. Mr A. R. Kale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State Authorities invited our attention to the Notification dated 19.04.1967 with relevant pages, copy of road development plan, copy of revised road development plan for the year 1981-2001, copy of relevant extract of hand book of basic PWD static of State of Maharashtra, the copy of village maps, the copy of letter dated 07.10.2020 along with the map given by Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Jalna, No Objection Certificate/permission letters granted by the Collector, Jalna, copies of measurement report, copies of all old Urdu documents regarding Highway No. 176. copies of map after measurement pertains to the road, etc. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 ::: 37 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
placed his reliance in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar reported in 1995 SCC (4) 683 to support his argument regarding belated claim of compensation.
10. Mr N.T. Tribhuwan and Mr S.K. Kadam, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents echoed the arguments advanced by the learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State.
11. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the respective parties. We have also gone through the documents, papers and maps relied upon by the parties in Writ Petition No. 5250/2020 which are as under :-
Sr. Particulars of documents Exh. Page Nos.
No.
1. The copy of notification dt. 19/04/1967 along R-1 116 to 143
with relevant pages.
2. Copy of Road Development Plan map. R-2 144 to 154
3. Copy of revised road development plan for R-3 155 to 155
the year 1981-2001
4. Copy of relevant extract of hand book of R-4 156 to 164
basic P.W.D. Static of State of Maharashtra
5. Copies of village maps R-5 165 to 168
colly.
6. Copy of letter dated 7.10.2020 along with the R-6 169 to 170
map given by the Executive Engineer, colly.
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikarn, Jalna
7. Copy of the No Objection certificate granted R-7 171 to 177
by the Collector, Jalna along with the other colly. documents.
8. Copy of the communication dated R-8 178 to 197 26/10/2015 from the Reliance JIO Infocom colly.
Limited to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Jalna along with the check list and agreement.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
38 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
9. Copy of the permission granted by the Ld. R-9 198 to 204 Collector, Jalna dated 5.5.2014 along with colly. the maps.
10. Copies of No Objection/order of the R-10 205 to 212 Collector, Jalna dated 23.7.2013 along with colly. the letter of P.W.D. dated 5.3.2012 and maps.
11. Copy of N.A. order dated 29.9.2015 along R-11 213 to 217 with the N.A. lay out. colly.
Last 217
page
12. The dispute between the parties is centered around with width of the road, now known as National Highway No. 573-H (previously known as State Highway No. 176). It is the contention of the petitioners that width of the road in question at respective villages is about 12 meters whereas the respondents-authorities have come out with a specific stand that the width of the road is about 30 meters. They are expending the road in question on the existing road of 30 meters. They are upgrading the road. As such, there is no need to acquire the lands of the adjacent land holders/land owners. The lands of adjacent land owners are not going to be affected by the up-gradation of the road in question. The petitioners have taken such stand only with a view to grab the compensation from the government authorities.
13. The petitioners are residents of village Shahapur, Dadegaon, Dhakalgaon and Math Tanda and their lands are adjacent to National Highway No.753-H. Two questions are cropped up before us which may encompass the dispute.
(i) Whether the width of the existing National Highway No. 753- H is 30 meters ?
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
39 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
(ii) Whether the width of the National Highway No. 753-H is being enhanced by the authorities from 12 to 30 meters, without due process of law ?
14. There is no dispute that the road in question was previously known as State Highway No. 176. According to section 3 of the Bombay Highways Act, 1955, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare any road, way or land to be a highway and classify it as -
(i) - a State Highway (Special)
(ii) - a State Highway
(iii) - a District Road
(iv) - Other District Road or
(v) - a Village Road.
15. By taking aid of above said provisions of the Bombay Highways Act, 1955, the Government of Maharashtra vide Government Notification dated 19th April, 1967, has declared the road from Jalna to Wadigodri and from Wadigodri to Shagad as State Highway. That notification is placed on record by the State along with the list of documents at Exh. R-1 Page 116 to 143 and relevant page is 143. It is an admitted position that previously, Jalna was under the territory of District Aurangabad and very recently in the year 1981, the Jalna District came to be separated. In the said notification, the width of the road i.e. State Highway is not mentioned. However, the Central Government notification of Ministry of Road Transport and State Highways dated 6 th February, 2018, the Central Government has declared, the State Highway No. 176 as National Highway No. 753-H. The notification speaks that the Highway ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 ::: 40 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
starting from its junction with National Highway/753-F near Sillod and connecting to Bhokardan, Hasnabad, Rajur, Bawane Pangri, Jalna and Ambad and terminating at its junction at NH-52 near Wadigodri in the State of Maharashtra shall be deemed to be a National Highway in view of the above referred notification under the National Highways Act, 1956.
16. The learned A.G.P. Mr Kale and learned Standing Counsel for National Highway Authority invited our attention to Handbook of Basic PWD Static, Maharashtra State published on 31st March, 1996, wherein the categories of roads have been given. We have gone through the relevant extract regarding standards of road and their width. As per the standards declared in the Handbook of Basic PWD Static by the State of Maharashtra on 31st March, 1996, the following are the standards of categories of roads.
National State District Other Village Road
Highway Highway Road District
Road
46 meters 30 meters 24 meters 12 meters 12 meters
17. By taking help of relevant extract of Handbook of basic PWD static, the learned A.G.P., and the learned standing counsel for the National Highways authority attempted to establish that existing width of the road in question is about 30 meters and not 12 meters as contended by the petitioners. They have further invited our attention to the copies of village maps and road maps and submitted that in view of the scales shown therein if the width of the road is calculated, it comes to about 30 meters. It is not a 12 meter road as contended by the petitioners. ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
41 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
18. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the work going on at respective villages is improvement of road. The Government is expanding width of the road under the garb of improvement of road/up-gradation of the road. The learned counsel for the petitioners also invited our attention to a letter issued by Government of India, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 26 February, 2018 addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments/Union Territories whereby the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has made it clear to take necessary steps for acquisition of additional land while expansion of existing road.
19. As per standards, the width of the State Highway should be 30 meters. The road in question was a District Road. As per standard width of the District Road is 12 meters. By way of notification dated 19th April, 1967, the road in question was declared as State Highway in the year 1967. The question comes when District Road came to be declared as State Highway. How the width of the road is enhanced to 30 meters. Was there any acquisition of lands of adjacent land owners by way of proceedings under the old Land Acquisition Act of 1894. No record is forthcoming from both the sides in order to clear the position. If the adjacent land owners had voluntarily given their lands for expansion of the road for a State Highway before 1971-1972, obviously, those land owners cannot claim any compensation in view of the Government notification dated 19th April, 1967, and in view of the citation in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar reported in 1995 (4) SCC 683. ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
42 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
There was famine in the State of Maharashtra in year of 1971-1972. The State of Maharashtra in order to give employment to lakhs of persons, initiated the work of construction of roads in the year 1971-72. By way of scarcity relief road works, if the road in question was enhanced in the year 1971-72, and the lands of respective land owners were acquired, certainly, the petitioners cannot raise voice now and claim compensation in view of the decision in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar (supra).
20. We have carefully gone through the village maps, as well as other maps and documents relied upon by the parties in Writ Petition No. 5250/2020 which are as under :-
Sr. Particulars of documents Exh. Page Nos.
No.
1. Copy of Right Of Way (ROW) R-2 161
2. Copy of revised Road Development Plan of R-3 162
Aurangabad District for the year - 1961-81
3. Copy of revised road development plan of R-3 163
Jalna District for the year 1981-2001
4. Copy of road development plan of Jalna R-3 164
district for the year 2001-2021
5. Copy of Dhakalgaon village map R-3 165
6. Copy of village map of Shahapur R-3 166
7. Copy of Dadhegaon village map R-3 167
8. Copy of village Math Tanda map R-3 168
9. Toposheet R-3 169
10. Toposheet R-3 170
11. Copy of consolidation map of village - -
Shahapur
12 Joint measurement map of village Wadigodri R-4 273
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
43 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
pertaining to Gut Nos. 31, 34, 42, and 43 in
Writ Petition No. 5250/2020
13. Joint measurement map pertaining to Gut - 274
Nos. 36/1 and 36/2 in Writ Petition No.
5250/2020
21. On going through the village maps, of villages, Shahapur, Dadegaon, Dhakalgaon and Math Tanda on the basis of scales, given on the respective maps, at particular places, the width of the road comes to 30 meters. If we peruse the map of the road which passes through Ambad city, it is a two lane road and having regard to the estimates and other documents produced by the P.W.D., it seems to be a 30 meter road. But it is in respect of Ambad town. The question is about width of the road at villages, Shahapur, Dadegaon, Dhakalgaon and Math Tanda, National Highway No. 753-H (previously known as State Highway No. 176) passing through these villages. Is width of the National Highway No. 753- H is 30 meter is a question to be answered on the basis of cogent evidence. Merely, producing maps of certain villages and copies of road development plans, may not be helpful to arrive at a conclusion and record finding to that effect. That may be erroneous exercise. On careful examination of above referred maps, plans and other documents, it is noticed by us that at some places, the width of the road is about 30 meters and at some places, it is less than 30 meters.
22. The learned counsel for the petitioners also invited our attention to the reply filed by respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 6 as well as reply filed by respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 and by referring relevant pages of the same forcefully argued that the width of the road in question is 12 meters.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
44 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
23. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human right in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Article 300 A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300 A, can be inferred from that Article. To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property without following due process of law is certainly violative of human right and so also, constitutional right provided under Article 300 A of the Constitution.
24. In case of Vidyadevi Vs. Himachal Pradesh and Ors (SLP No. 6066/1995), it is held by the Apex Court that in a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State should not deprive a citizen of their property without sanction of law. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law, cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution.
25. In case of Pradyumna Mukund Kokil Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2015 (4) All M.R. 983, it is held by the Apex Court that it would not be proper on the part of the government body or any State authority to take possession of somebodies land without following due process of law and even if a citizen has permitted his land being used by government authority, the authority should not take undue advantage thereof at a time of giving compensation when said land ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 ::: 45 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
is acquired.
26. In case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and others Vs. MIDC and others reported in 2013 AIR (SC) 565, wherein it is held by the Apex Court that the question of condonation of delay is one of the discretion and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand, as the same is vary from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226, nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter, after the passage of a certain length of time. There may be a case where the demand for justice is so compelling that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay. Ultimately, it would be a matter within the discretion of the Court and such discretion, must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it.
27. Depriving the persons of their immovable properties, was a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. In a welfare State, statutory authorities are bound, not only to pay adequate compensation, but there is also a legal obligation upon them to rehabilitate such persons. The non-fulfillment of their obligations would tantamount to forcing the said uprooted persons to become vagabonds or to indulge in anti-national activities as such sentiments would be born in them on account of such ill- treatment. Therefore, it is not permissible for any welfare State to uproot a person and deprive him of his fundamental/constitutional/human rights, ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 ::: 46 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
under the garb of industrial development.
28. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon decision of Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 4717/2019 to which both of us were party decided on 30.04.2020 and pressed for the same relief.
29. It is now well settled position of law that right to property is a human right and according to Article 300-A of the Constitution, a person cannot be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be inferred from the said Article.
30. If a person is forcefully dispossessed from his private property without following due process of law would amount to breach of human right as well as violative of constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution as held in case of Vidydevi (supra).
31. The facts involved in a writ petition No. 4717/2019 decided by us on 30.04.2020 are quite distinguishable from the case at hand. In writ petition No. 4717/2019, decided by us, the respondents in the affidavit-in- reply had in no uncertain words, admitted the ownership of the petitioners over their lands. It was observed by us that 10 meters wide road was in existence since the year 1971-72. It was further observed by us that only on paper, the State Authorities upgraded the road constructed under the ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 ::: 47 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
Employment Guarantee Scheme (E.G.S.) in the year 1971-72 as a District Road in the year 1981 and a District Road into a State Highway in 2001. Here the case at hand, the respondents/authorities have not admitted that the width of the road in question is 12 meters. The respondents/authorities have come out with a specific case that the width of the road in question is about 30 meters. Having regard to the distinguishable facts, decision in writ petition No. 4717/2019 does not render any help to the petitioners.
32. We understand that up-gradation of road as a National Highway is a development work. It would be certainly beneficial to the people at large in the vicinity including the petitioners. They are agriculturists and their agricultural produce may reach to the big cities by speedy transportation and they may get good price of their agricultural produce. At the same time, we cannot overlook the duty cast upon the State authorities. The respondents are the State authorities and Central authorities constructing National Highway. They are expected to be model litigants. It is expected from the State and Central authorities to respect rights of petitioners and follow due procedure of law when property is likely to be acquired. The respondents/authorities are certainly required to adhere to the rule of law. In a society governed by rule of law, there should not be arbitrariness in any decision. The courts in appropriate cases need to step in a exercise of their extraordinary writ jurisdiction under the Constitution of India to prevent any arbitrary action by the State Authorities.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
48 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
33. Now, coming back to the factual scenario of the case on hand. As discussed herein before, there is no conclusive proof on record to establish that the width of the road which passes through villages, Shahapur, Dadegaon, Dhakalgaon and Math Tanda is 30 meters, and there is no question of acquiring lands of adjacent land owners/petitioners. In order to strike a balance, and to resolve the issue of width of the road, it is necessary to have joint measurement of the road which passes through above said villages. Certainly, that exercise of measurement of road shall be in presence of petitioners and the respondents/authorities. If that exercise of measurement of roads in respect of the above said villages is exercised through appropriate agency under the supervision of the District Collector, Jalna, that would resolve the dispute completely. There may not be any injustice to either side if that exercise is made. On the other hand, it would facilitate both the sides to resolve the dispute regarding the width of the road in a smooth way.
34. Having regard to the above reasons and discussion, we arrive at a conclusion to issue certain directions to the respondents/ authorities regarding measurement of the road in question at respective villages in presence of both the sides. With these reasons, we proceed to pass the following order :-
ORDER (I) The respondents-authorities shall conduct measurement of National Highway No. 753-H (previously known as State ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 ::: 49 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
Highway No. 176) at villages, Shahapur, Dadegaon, Dhakalgaon and Math Tanda through appropriate authority in presence of both the sides, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four months.
(II) At the time of measurement, if the width of the road at respective villages is found to be 30 meters, there shall not any question of acquisition of adjacent lands of the petitioners. (III) If at the time of measurement, the width of the road is found to be less than 30 meters, certainly, the State and Central authorities, shall follow due process of law in acquiring the land to the extent required by them.
(IV) The exercise of measurement of road at above said villages shall be undertaken under the supervision of District Collector, Jalna in order to avoid any controversy.
(V) With the above directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of.
(VI) Civil Application No. 5553/2020 in Writ Petition No. 5250/2020 and Civil Application No. 3480 in Writ Petition No. 7270/2020 stand allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) therein. ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::
50 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .
(VII) In view of disposal of writ petitions, civil application No. 5136/2020 in writ petition No.5250/2020 and civil application No. 5114/2020 in writ petition No. 4937/2020 also stand disposed of.
(VIII) No order as to costs.
[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ] [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
mta
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 05:27:04 :::