Prajit Kondiba Mundhe And Another v. The Union Of India And Others

1 87-WP-49 and 51.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.49 OF 2017 Prajit Kondiba Mundhe and others ..Petitioners Vs.

Union of India and others ..Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO.51 OF 2017 Dattatraya s/o. Manik Suryawanshi and others .Petitioners Vs.

Union of India and others ..Respondents -- Mr.R.V.Naiknavare, Advocate for petitioners Mr.S.B.Deshpande, A.S.G.I. for respondent no.1 Mr.D.S.Manorkar, Advocate for respondent no.2 Mr.M.B.Bharaswadkar, AGP for respondent nos.3 and 4 -- CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : MARCH 14, 2017 PER COURT :

Heard Mr.Naiknaware, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Manorkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2.

2 87-WP-49 and 51.odt 2.

According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the respondents are required to determine the compensation as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the Act of 2013", for short) 3.

Mr.Manorkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the compensation has been computed as per the Act of 2013 and the lands acquired being in urban area, multiplying factor is only one. If the petitioners seek enhancement of the compensation, they may move the Arbitrator as per the provisions of Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

4.

Considering the above, the Writ Petitions stand disposed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Arbitrator.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] kbp