The main legal point established in the judgment is that CIDCO's refusal to comply with its obligations under the Government Resolution and its discriminatory treatment of the petitioners in the payment of compensation was in violation of their constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT

R.D.DHANUKA, J. - Rule. Learned AGP for the respondent No. 1, 2, 4 and 7 waives service. Mr. Hegde Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 and 6 waives service. By consent of parties, petition is heard finally

2. By this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek writ of mandamus directing the respondents to deposit the entire decreetal amount along with accrued interest till the date of payment in respective Darkhast applications as per chart annexed at Exhibit 'D' to the petition and to permit the petitioners to withdraw the said amount. Some of the relevant facts for deciding this petition are as under:-

3. The State Government had notified around 95 villages by different notifications for setting up a new town under sec. 113 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the said MRTP Act) . On or about 2nd/3/9/1970, the State Government issued different notification for each village under sec. 4 of the said MRTP Act. The acquisition proceedings however were not completed. The notification under sec. 4 of the MRTP Act thus lapsed. On 24th/ 26/9/1986, the State Government issued a fresh notification in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners situated at village Roadpali. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners accepted meagre compensation awarded to the petitioners under protest. The petitioners filed reference under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said reference was partly allowed against which the State Government filed First Appeal No. 646 of 1995. On 23/12/1993, the Reference Court determined the market rate between Rs.200.00 to Rs.230.00 per sq. mts. in respect of the lands situated in Village Roadpali.

4. On 21/6/2007, a Division bench of this Court determined market rate at Rs.1725.00 per sq.mts. in respect of village Roadpali. The State Government did not challenge the said decision. In the year 2009, the CIDCO however filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the decision in First Appeal No. 646 of 1995 and connected matters before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of Village Roadpali.

5. Some time in the year 1996-97, after the decision given by the District Court in case of Village Roadpali, the reference filed under sec. 18 in respect of Village Padghe was heard and disposed of by the Reference Court. The said judgment was challenged by the State Government and also by the claimants in those matters.

6. Some of the claimants filed Civil Application for seeking amendment to the reference which came to be filed in some of the First Appeals by the claimants led by Mr. Ashok Laxman Wani in respect of Land Acquisition Reference in respect of Village Padghe. On 31/7/2008, a Division bench of this Court held that the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) cannot be made applicable to the reference under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. This Court however, held that market rate determined in village Roadpali can be made applicable to the lands situated in Village Padghe. This Court refused to award the same rate on certain grounds.

7. Some time in the year 2008-09, Mr. Ashok Laxman Wani and others filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the judgment and order passed by this Court whereby the rate made applicable to the Village Roadpali was not awarded to them because amendment applications were dismissed.

8. During the period between 7/11/2009 to 6/3/2013, the CIDCO submitted an application before the District Court in one of the reference for impleading it as a party-defendant during the pendency of the SLP. The said application was allowed by the District Court. The original claimant filed a writ petition bearing No. 1211 of 2009 in this Court. Learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ petition and set aside the order passed by the District Court. This Court held that the State Government is the acquiring body and the CID