← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/8747/2024disposed off

Vivek Vinayakrao Kolpekwar And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2024-08-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade3 pages

2024:BHC-AUG:19072-DB *1*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 56 WRIT PETITION NO. 8747 OF 2024 (Board dt.19.08.2024) VIVEK VINAYAKRAO KOLPEKWAR AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Shri Patil Vijay B., Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri V.M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. Shri Rahul Bagul, Standing Counsel for Respondent No.4. ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE :- 20th August, 2024 Per Court :- 1.

The Central Railways be added as Respondent No.4. Addition be carried out forthwith.

2.

Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable forthwith. The learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India Shri Bagul, waives service of notice on behalf of

*2* the added Respondent No.4.

3.

The learned AGP submits that the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Ahmednagar Central Railways, has addressed the communication dated 30.09.2022 to the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Jayakwadi Project, Beed, in response to the communication dated 29.09.2022, from the latter. It is informed that dropout area is 9.23 hectors, which is not required for the Ahmednagar-Beed-Parli project and the work is being carried out in the already acquired land. It is categorically informed with reference to the meeting held with the District Collector, Beed, on 29.10.2022, that the said Writ land is not required by the Railways for the project.

4.

In view of the above, we grant liberty to the Petitioners to tender a detailed representation to Respondent No.4 and set out their grievance. Respondent No.4 would respond to the said representation within 60 days from the date of receipt of the representation. If the Petitioners' grievance is not redressed by the reply of Respondent No.4, they may take recourse to the remedy as may be permissible in law.

*3* 5.

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed off.

kps (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)