JUDGMENT :

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

1. Rule. Mr.Damle, learned counsel for MIDC – Respondent no.1 waives service. Mr. Patel, Addl. G.P. for the State – Respondent nos.2 to 4 waives service. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The matters are heard finally at the admission stage by the consent of parties.

2. By these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have impugned the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act (for short “MID Act”) with respect to Survey No.150, Hissa No.3, situated at Village Mann, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune.

3. The Petitioners owned various plots, including the plot bearing No.150, Hissa No.3. On 30th September, 2001 and August, 2004, notices under Section 32(2) and the notification under Section 32(1) of the said MID Act respectively came to be issued in respect of various lands, including the writ property. It is the case of the Petitioners that the writ property, however was deleted in the agreement entered into between the Petitioners and Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC). Compensation was awarded in respect of the said four plots.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners invited our attention to the order under Section 33(2) and 36(1) of the MID Act and more particularly page 90 of the Petition stating that the agreement in respect of the writ property is shown as blank in paragraph (v) of the said award. He submitted that since the writ property was deleted from the agreement entered into between the parties, the State Government could not have made an award under Section 33(2) read with Section 36(1) of the MID Act. He also placed reliance on the acquisition certificate issued on 30th January, 2019 in respect of various land acquired. Land bearing Survey No.150(3) is not mentioned in the said certificate.

5. Mr.Deshmukh, urged that though the said land was acquired, no compensation was given to the Petitioners and thus compensation was required to be determined under Section 33(3) of the MID Act. He submitted that instead of following said appropriate proceedings, an award came to be made under Section 32(1) read with Section 36 of the MID Act.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned award insofar as writ property is concerned, thus shall be quashed and set aside.

7. Mr.Patel, learned Additional Government Pleader for the State tendered a certified copy of the Agreement dated 27th November, 2004 entered into between the Petitioners as one of the co-owner and the MIDC. Learned Addl. G.P. also invited our attention to the affidavit in reply filed by the MIDC and more particularly paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of the said affidavit. He submitted that the said affidavit filed by MIDC clearly indicates that there was agreement with the Petitioner No.1 in respect of the subject land which was executed on 27th November, 2004. He submitted that according to the said affidavit, the objection raised by the Petitioners in respect of the writ property was rejected by the Government of Maharashtra and after consideration of objections of the owners of other land, vide letter dated 2nd August, 2004, the same land was released from the acquisition process. He submitted that since the procedure was followed under the provisions of MID Act, no interference is warranted.

8. Learned counsel for MIDC relied upon the averments made in the affidavit in reply filed by MIDC. He submitted that since the dispute is regarding compensation, if the Petitioners are aggrieved by the compensation awarded in the impugned award, the remedy of the Petitioners would be to apply for enhancement of compensation.

9. A perusal of the award indicates that the notice was issued under Section 32(2) and the notification under Section 32(1) of the MID Act in respect of the writ property on 13th September, 2001 and 6th August, 2001 respectively. In paragraph (V) of the said award, it is provided that the owners have given Kararpatra (