The main legal point established in the judgment is that the claim for rental compensation under the Government Resolutions issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not maintainable, as the acquisition proceedings for the writ property were completed under the provisions of the Fair Compensation Act, and the Petitioners had already received compensation through private negotiations.

JUDGMENT

R.D. Dhanuka, J. - Rule. Learned AGP waives service for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.Vilas B. Tapkir waives service for the Respondent No.5. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus against the Respondents to pay to the Petitioners the rental compensation at the rate of 8% p.a. on the amount of compensation awarded to them through private negotiations as shown in the Sale Deeds dated 30th September, 2019 and 12th August, 2020 along with 6% interest thereon. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under :

3. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners were the owners of the lands admeasuring 9 R bearing Gat No.426, 41 R bearing Gat No.456 and 66 R bearing Gat No.461 all situated at Village Chale, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur. The Respondent No.5 took possession of the writ lands in the month of January, 1992. No acquisition proceedings were commenced by the Respondents till private negotiations in respect of the writ lands took place between the parties in the year 2019.

4. In pursuance of the private negotiations, the Petitioners and the Respondent No.5 executed the Sale Deeds on 30th September, 2019 and 16th September, 2020 in respect of the writ property.

5. On 15th June, 2020 and 27th August, 2020, the Petitioners made the representations to the Respondent No.5 requesting to pay the rental compensation along with interest from the date of taking possession of the writ lands.

6. On 19th March, 2020, 10th August, 2020 and 27th October, 2020, the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Coordination, Solapur, the Assistant Superintending Engineer, Bhima Canal Circle, Solapur and the Collector, Solapur addressed the letters to the Executive Engineer, Ujani Canal Division No.1, Mangalwedha, Executive Director, Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, Pune and the Superintending Engineer, Bhima Canal Circle, Solapur requesting them to pay rental compensation and the interest thereon in accordance with the law to the Petitioners.

7. It is the case of the Petitioners that despite such request made by various authorities to the Respondent No.5 to pay rental compensation in accordance with law to the Petitioners, the Respondent No.5 did not pay any such rental compensation with interest or otherwise to the Petitioners. It is the case of the Petitioners that refusal on the part of the Respondent No.5 to pay rental compensation to the Petitioners is contrary to the Government Resolutions dated 1st December, 1972, 7th September, 1977 and 24th March, 1988 regarding providing for payment of rental compensation to the land owners whose lands were acquired by private negotiations for public purpose. The Petitioners thus filed this Writ Petition for various reliefs.

8. Ms.Talekar, learned counsel for the Petitioners invited our attention to the Government Resolutions dated 1st December, 1972, 7th September, 1977 and 24th March, 1988 and submitted that the Respondent No.5 refused to pay rental compensation contrary to the directives issued by the Government of Maharashtra in those three Government Resolutions. She submitted that the possession of the lands was already taken by the Respondent No.5 as far back as in the year 1992. The decision to pay rental compensation in respect of the writ lands was taken in the meeting held by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition), Solapur on 8th July, 2020, which meeting was attended by various officers of the Respondent No.1.

9. It is submitted that none of the Respondents took any steps to acquire the lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or The Right to Fair Compensation in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short the said 'Fair Compensation Act').

10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Sub- Di