Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. A.V. Indrale Patil h/for Mr. D. K. Thote, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S.W. Munde and Mrs. S.G. Karlekar, AGPs

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The petitioners challenged the awards related to land acquisition, filed after a significant delay of approximately eight years, and sought judicial review through writ petitions (!) (!) .

2. The respondents argued that the petitioners should have pursued the statutory remedy available under Section 64 of the relevant Act, which provides an effective and expeditious process for contesting awards (!) .

3. The petitioners contended that despite the availability of Section 64, the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, especially when the statutory authority has failed to perform its duties properly, or when grave injustice has been caused (!) (!) .

4. The Court emphasized that the availability of an efficacious and expeditious statutory remedy typically warrants the High Court declining to entertain writ petitions, unless exceptional circumstances such as urgency, injustice, or procedural violations are demonstrated (!) (!) .

5. The Court noted that the petitioners did not sufficiently justify the delay in approaching the Court nor establish elements of urgency or injustice that would warrant bypassing the statutory remedy (!) .

6. It was reaffirmed that the High Court has the discretion to entertain writ petitions even when statutory remedies exist, but such discretion should be exercised judiciously, considering whether the remedy is effective and whether injustice would be perpetuated by insisting on the statutory process (!) (!) .

7. The Court observed that the authorities responsible for land acquisition failed to apply their mind and did not consider relevant law, leading to grave injustice to the petitioners. Exercising discretion to entertain the petitions was justified to prevent further hardship (!) .

8. The impugned awards were set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration, with directions to the authority to consider relevant sale instances and rates, including older sale instances adjusted for escalation, to determine fair compensation (!) (!) .

9. The petitioners were given the option to challenge the revised awards under the statutory remedy provided in Section 64 if they remained aggrieved after reconsideration (!) .

10. Overall, the Court underscored the importance of balancing statutory remedies with the need to prevent injustice, especially in cases where authorities have failed to exercise their duties properly or where delay has caused significant hardship.