1 WP-5250-2020 & Ors J .

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT

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. , 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:05 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:05 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:05 ::: 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 , Secretary (Works), Public Works Department, Mantralaya, – 32.

::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2021 08:35:05 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:05 ::: 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 , Through its Project Director, B-23, Near Kamgar Chowk, CIDCO, N-4, Aurangabad – 431001. ... Respondents.

::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2021 08:35:05 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:05 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:05 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:05 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - ,

Hasnabad - , 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 , 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 14th 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 6th 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 :-

O R D E R

(I) The respondents-authorities shall conduct measurement of

National Highway No. 753-H (previously known as State

::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 ::: 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 - 17/07/2021 08:35:06 :::