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 - 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 Maharashtra, Secretary (Works), Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 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 India, 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 - 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 - 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 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 - 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 :::