MANISH PITALE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner herein has claimed that the Railway Authorities represented by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein have encroached upon part of the land belonging to him by undertaking construction of Ahmednagar-Beed-Parali railway line through the said portion of his land, for which neither any acquisition proceeding was undertaken nor was any compensation paid to him.

3. Initially, it was the prayer of the petitioner that the said respondents be prohibited from carrying out any work pertaining to laying down said railway line, but, by way of amendment, petitioner has submitted that if said portion of land is required for railways, he would give up his claim to that portion of the land, provided he is paid compensation in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2013”).

4. The petitioner purchased 2.68 hectares of land in Block 68 (old), new Block No.69 village Palwan, Taluka and Dist. Beed, by a registered sale deed on 30.01.2009. It was the case of the petitioner that prior to purchasing the said land from one Sayyad Badshah Sayyad Gulab, he held a power of attorney of the said vendor, on the basis of which he had applied for and obtained an order of conversion of the said land to non-agricultural use.

5. It has come on record that notification for acquisition of one hectare 17 R land from the said Block No.68/69 was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the L.A. Act”) first on 18.12.2008 and lastly on 04.02.2009. Thereafter, notification under section 6 of the L.A. Act was issued and finally award dated 04.11.2011 was declared by the competent authority. In the notifications and in the said award, it was stated that the aforesaid portion of land from Block No. 68/69 owned by one Sudamati Vishwanath Prabhale and others was acquired. There was no mention of any other owner from the said Block 68/69 and name of only the said Sudamati Vishwanath Prabhale was specifically stated in the said documents. It is the case of the petitioner that no notices were ever issued to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons and that therefore, the entire exercise carried out by respondent Nos. 5 to 9 was illegal and there had been no acquisition of the land belonging to petitioner in the eyes of law.

6. It was claimed by the petitioner that when the railway authorities first entered upon portion of land belonging to him in Block No. 68/69 that he became aware about the aforesaid railway line passing through his land, and the claim staked by the authorities on that portion of his land.

7. In this backdrop, on 16.11.2015, the petitioner sent a letter to respondent No. 8 (Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition) demanding grant of compensation for the portion of his land sought to be utilized for laying down the said railway line. On this basis, the said respondent sent a letter to respondent No. 9 for remeasurement of the land in Block No. 68/69, so as to ascertain the area of land being utilized for laying down the railway line.

8. On 04.04.2016, petitioner sent a detailed representation to respondent No.7 (Collector, Beed) seeking compensation for part of his land being utilized by the railway authorities, under the provisions of the Act of 2013. On 07.01.2017, the petitioner sent a representation to respondent No. 8 for remeasurement of the land to ascertain the exact extent to which the land of the petitioner was being utilized for laying down the railway line.

9. Thereafter, on 02.02.2017, the said Sudamati Vishwanath Prabhale sent a letter to the respondent No. 8 stating that the record of rights (7/12 extract) of Block No. 68/69 was showing one hectare 17 R land as belonging to her, which stood acquired for work of railway line. She stated that she had only 0.03 hectare