JUDGMENT :

GAURI GODSE, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Venegaonkar waives service for Respondents. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. This Petition was initially filed for challenging the illegal action of partial demolition and damage caused to hotel premises, viz. “M/s. Hotel Grand Heritage” at the hands of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The Petitioners had prayed for directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to forthwith restore and repair the demolished part of the building. In the alternative, the Petitioners had prayed for allowing the Petitioners to restore and repair the building as it existed prior to illegal partial demolition and recover the expenses from Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

3. By way of amendment, the Petitioners challenged the corrigendum dated 31st May 2022 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, Daman, as well as modification to the corrigendum issued on 23rd November 2022 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Daman.

4. Initially the Petition was filed only by Petitioner No. 1 - husband of the owner of the writ property. Subsequently, by way of amendment, the owner of the property was also joined as Petitioner No. 2. The Petitioners contended that Petitioner No. 2 is the owner and occupier of the land in question along with the hotel building known as “M/s. Hotel Grand Heritage” situated at Survey Nos. 795/1 and 795/2 at Village Dabhel, Nani Daman. The Petitioners contended that after obtaining the necessary permissions, construction of the hotel premises was carried out. It was contended that without following any procedure of law, Respondent No. 2 initiated action and carried out partial demolition and caused damage to the hotel structure.

5. There was an Affidavit-in-Reply filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1, thereby contending that Respondents had acted as per the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (“Act of 2013”). It was contended that after following the provisions under the Act of 2013, Award was passed on 14th March 2022 under Section 23 of the Act of 2013 in respect of the Petitioners’ land being survey No. 795/1 and 795/2. It was stated in the affidavit that the compound wall and front structure of the hotel building of the Petitioners were under acquisition. At the time when the concerned officers visited the land under acquisition to verify whether the affected structure was demolished or not, it was brought to the knowledge of the concerned officers that only the compound wall was affected in view of the acquisition and the hotel structure was not affected under the acquisition proceedings. It was thus contended that the Award for Compensation was passed on 14th March 2022, a corrigendum Award was issued on 31st May 2022, and a modification order dated 23rd November 2022 was issued with respect to the affected portion of the hotel building of the Petitioners.

6. It was further stated in the Affidavit that the Petitioners were well versed with the issuance of the corrigendum, and the concerned authorities had on several occasions requested the Petitioners to demolish the affected structure. It was thus contended that the demolition of the affected structure was carried out by following the procedure under the Act of 2013 with respect to the structure which was affected by the acquisition.

7. Petitioners filed an Affidavit dated 22nd November 2022, thereby placing on record the photographs showing the demolition work that was carried out by Respondent No. 2 with respect to the hotel building of the Petitioners. By way of said Affidavit, Petitioners contended that under the land acquisition proceedings, only a portion of Petitioners’ property, i.e. survey No. 795/1 and 795/2, admeasuring about 146 square meters and 83 square meters was affected, and the hotel building standing on the aforesaid land was not at all affected as per the land acquisition Award passed on 14th March 20