AJINATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. B.V. Wagh, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3. Learned Counsel, Mr. S.G. Sangle, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 6. Service of Rule to respondent no.5 is dispensed with since the respondent no.5 is only a formal party. By consent of appearing parties taken up for hearing.

(2.) THE land of the petitioners was required for a public purpose of construction of a village water tank. The respondents approached the petitioners for a consent for taking possession of the land even before the acquisition proceedings were commenced and / or completed. Accordingly, an agreement was executed between the petitioners and the respondent nos.4 and 6 (acquiring body) on 16th June 2005. Clause No.1 of the agreement states that the petitioners would be allowed to harvest only the existing crop but shall not be allowed to sow new crop. Clause No.2 states that the compensation for the period between the date of possession and the date of award shall be determined by the Collector.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that though the possession of the land was taken over and though they were Right to property is a constitutional right conferred by Article of the Constitution of India. The petitioners could not have been deprived of their property without payment of compensation and in accordance with the law. The petitioners have been deprived of their property without payment of compensation and without following procedure established by law for acquisition of property. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to a mandamus directing the respondents to acquire their land and pay them compensation.