NEHA JITENDRA AGRAWAL Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Mr. Pravin S. Patil, Additional Govt. Pleader representing the State/respondents.

(2.) By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, primarily, challenge has been made to the award dtd. 8/5/2023 declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur, Dist. Jalgaon under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Acquisition Act of 2013").

(3.) At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned State counsel as to the maintainability of the writ petitions in view of the availability of a statutory remedy by way of making a reference to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' for sake of brevity) under Sec. 64 of the Acquisition Act of 2013. It has been argued by the learned AGP that Sec. 64 provides an efficacious statutory remedy to a person who is aggrieved by the award in any manner and hence, the petitioners may take recourse to the said statutory remedy instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.