JUDGMENT :

Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of both sides taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner, by taking aid of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is challenging the Government Circular No. jksHkwla&2016@iz-dz-188@jkg;ks&8 dated 27th February, 2020 issued by the Planning Department (EGS Division), Mantralaya, Mumbai, with a prayer to quash and set aside the said Circular since it is not in conformity with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Maharashtra) Rules, 2014.

3. The factual scenario giving rise to this petition, in brief, is as under:

Respondent No.3 decided to acquire the land of the petitioner situated at Tagadkhel, Tq. Ashti, District Beed for construction of the Village Tank. Respondent No.3, District Collector, Beed issued work order on 22.05.2002 and allotted the work of construction of village Tank No.6 to respondent no.4 - District Soil & Water Conservation Officer, Beed. Respondent No.3, after obtaining consent of the petitioner, took possession of his land on 24.12.2002, subject to completion of acquisition proceeding as per the law. The Village Tank NO.6 was sanctioned under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS). Accordingly, the village tank was constructed by respondent Nos. 3 to 4. The respondent No.3 had initiated the land acquisition proceedings in the year 2006 but, due to the shortcomings on the part of the State authorities, the acquisition proceedings came to be lapsed.

4. In Writ Petition No.1279/2013, this Court has directed to the State authorities to complete the land acquisition proceedings within time limit as per law. In the year 2018, the respondents/State authorities started acquisition proceedings under the new Act i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 for brevity). The acquisition proceeding has reached the stage of declaration of provisional award. The petitioner has received notice under Section 21 (2), (4) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013.

5. On 27.02.2020, respondent No.1 issued one Circular stating that declaration of award under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 in respect of the project or work done under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS), in such matters/cases the Deputy Collector, Sub Divisional Officer/District Collector shall obtain prior approval of the concerned Divisional Commissioner to fix the rate of acquired land and thereafter may declare the award. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said circular, made representation to the respondents/State authorities and requested to cancel the said circular dated 27.02.2020.

6. The petitioner contended that the respondents had decided to acquire land of the petitioner prior to 18 years on 22.05.2002 and taken possession of his land on 24.12.2002. The petitioner is fighting for getting compensation, which is his constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

7. According to the petitioner, the impugned circular is against the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 and Rule 18 of the Right to Fair Compensation (Maharashtra) Rules, 2014. The impugned circular has given birth for undue delay in the procedure of declaring award under Act of 2013. The petitioner is fighting to get the compensation since the year 2002 and when there is light of indication to get the compensation, the same is likely to be affected due to the impugned circular. In this background, the petitioner has approached this Court and challenged the impugned Circular dated 27.02.2020 by invoking writ jurisdiction.

8. The respondents/State authorities have supported to the impugned Circular by filing replay affidavit of the De