Bombay High Court
Bhaskar Gana Bhoir And Anr vs City And Industrial Development ... on 19 January, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2026:BHC-AS:2584-DB
11_WP8176_16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8176 OF 2016
Bhaskar Gana Bhoir and another ... Petitioners
Vs.
City and Industrial Development Corporation of
Maharashtra through MD and others ... Respondents
Mr. Rahul Thakur a/w. Ms. Vidhi Nayar and Mr. Pravin P. for Petitioners.
Mr. Nitin Gangal a/w. Ms. Prapti Karkera for Respondents - CIDCO.
Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 6 - State.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 19, 2026 P.C. :
. Heard Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Ms.Bane, learned AGP appearing for the respondent-State authorities, as also Mr.Gangal, learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary of the acquisition i.e. the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (CIDCO).
2. The petitioners have approached this Court praying for the following reliefs:-
"(a) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ in the nature of certiorari to modify the order dated 15/12/2025, passed by the Respondent No.1 herein being order भूसं / मेसेनं-३/ टे-२/कवी २३५/ २०१५, and direct payment of compensation / lease rent @ 15% of the price / value of land on the date of issuance of notification u/s.4(1) for acquisition of the said land as mentioned in the award;
(b) This Hon. Court may be pleased to issue writ in nature of mandamus or any other writ, direction, order in nature of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 and 2 to pay to the 1/12 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:51:58 ::: 11_WP8176_16.doc petitioner immediately and forthwith damages / compensation / rent computed @ 15% on the amount awarded as price of land on the date of issuance of notification u/s.4(1) for acquisition of land bearing survey No.311/3 paiki admeasuring 0-10-0R at Village Koparkhairane, Taluka - District - Thane."
3. In the light of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, as also the Collector, Thane, we find that payment of rental compensation, which is the central grievance of the petitioners, was made on 16.04.2016 in terms of an earlier order of Division Bench of this Court dated 17.07.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013 filed by these very petitioners. According to respondent Nos.2 and 3, the said order of this Court was complied with and payment was disbursed on 16.04.2016, in support whereof, copy of a receipt is annexed at exhibit-5 (collectively) with the reply affidavit.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to rental compensation from the date of actual dispossession till the date of issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 @ 15% p.a. of the market value of the acquired land. The emphasis of the petitioners is on the rate of 15% p.a. rental compensation, on the basis of law laid down by the Supreme Court in certain judgements, copies of which have been annexed to the petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed specific reliance on judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Madishetti Bala Ramul (Dead) by LRs Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (2007) 9 SCC 650; Tahera Khotoon and others Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer / Land Acquisition Officer and others, (2014) 13 SCC 613; Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool District Vs. M. Ramakrishna Reddy (dead) by LRs, (2011) 11 SCC 648; R. L. Jain (D) by LRs Vs. DDA and others, (2004) 4 2/12 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:51:58 ::: 11_WP8176_16.doc SCC 79 and Balwan Singh and others Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another, (2016) 13 SCC 412.
6. By placing reliance on the aforesaid judgements of the Supreme Court, it is contended that rental compensation ought to have been paid @ 15% p.a. of the market value as determined in the land acquisition award and enhanced subsequently by the Reference Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. It is brought to our notice that an appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Reference Court is pending, while the State has not preferred any appeal, thereby indicating that it has not raised any challenge to the enhanced amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court.
8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners, including Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013, which was disposed of by the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2015. It was submitted that although a reference to Government Resolutions dated 01.12.1972 and 02.04.1979 was made in the said judgement and order dated 17.07.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013, the said Government Resolutions specifying payment of rental compensation @ 8% p.a. do not apply to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that the Government Resolutions clearly apply to the cases where possession is taken through private negotiations and the acquisition pertains to irrigation projects. It is submitted that since these two conditions do not apply to the facts of the present case, where the acquisition was for the benefit of CIDCO, the petitioners are clearly entitled for rental compensation @15% p.a., as determined by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgements. It is further submitted that the occasion to raise this issue arose only after 3/12 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:51:58 ::: 11_WP8176_16.doc the respondent State authorities determined the rate of rental compensation after Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013 was disposed of.
9. On the other hand, the learned AGP and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents - CIDCO submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the present petition. Reliance was placed on the judgement and order dated 17.07.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013. It was contended that the operative portion of the said order specifically directs the case of the petitioner to be considered for payment of rental compensation under the aforesaid two Government Resolutions, and therefore, now the petitioners cannot be permitted to turn around and claim that the Government Resolutions do not apply and further that they are entitled to enhanced rate of rental compensation @15% p.a. of the market value of the land. It was further submitted that in all fairness, the petitioners ought to have placed on record the receipt dated 16.04.2016, whereby amount of rental compensation calculated @8% p.a. of the market value in terms of the aforesaid two Government Resolutions was received by the petitioners.
10. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the above- quoted prayer clauses of the present writ petition shows that the petitioners seek rental compensation @ 15% p.a. of the market value, although rental compensation @ 8% p.a. of the market value as on the date of dispossession, determined by the respondent authorities, has been paid.
11. The controversy, in the present case, pertaining to rental compensation arose initially for the reason that in the land acquisition award, a particular clause was incorporated granting rental compensation to the petitioners, but subsequently, it was sought to be deleted. This led to various rounds of litigation in the form of writ petitions being filed by 4/12 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:51:58 ::: 11_WP8176_16.doc the petitioners. Ultimately, Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013 was filed by the petitioners, inter alia, raising a grievance with regard to the manner in which rental compensation was being deprived and that the State authorities were acting in the teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to payment of rental compensation. The judgement and order dated 17.07.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013 assumes great significance for disposal of the present writ petition, and therefore, it is necessary to peruse the same and to understand as to what were the directions issued in the operative portion of the said order.
12. Having perused the judgement and order dated 17.07.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013, we find that contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners as well as the State authorities and CIDCO were considered in detail. The State took a specific stand that the case of the petitioners could be considered under the aforementioned Government Resolutions. The Division Bench of this Court also referred to judgements of the Supreme Court, including some of the judgements on which reliance is placed by the petitioners even today and found that the petitioners had indeed made out a case in their favour for payment of rental compensation. After quoting paragraph 18 of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of R. L. Jain (D) by LRs Vs. DDA and others (supra) and also upon referring to the judgement of this Court in the case of Ashok Chandrabhan Aagle and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2012 (5) Bom.C.R.107, the Division Bench of this Court rendered conclusion in favour of the petitioners towards their entitlement for payment of rental compensation.
13. But, it is crucial to note that in the discussion, the Division Bench of this Court specifically referred to the aforementioned two Government Resolutions and after considering the claims made by the petitioners, disposed of the writ petition in the following manner:-
5/12 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:51:58 :::11_WP8176_16.doc " ORDER
(a) We direct the petitioners or their authorized representative to appear before the District Collector of the District Thane on 10th August 2015 at 11:00 a.m.;
(b) The petitioners shall produce an authenticated copy of this judgement and order before the Collector, Thane;
(c) The Collector, Thane, shall consider the case of the petitioners for payment of rental compensation in terms of the Government Resolution dated 1st December 1972 as modified by the subsequent Government Resolution dated 2 nd April 1979;
(d) The Collector, Thane shall also determine the date on which the possession of the said land was taken over by the First Respondent CIDCO. Hence, the Collector shall issue notice of inquiry to the First Respondent CIDCO;
(e) As the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been already made, the Collector shall determine final rental compensation payable to the Petitioners as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four months from 10th August 2015;
(f) The petitioners and the first respondent CIDCO will be entitled to produce necessary documents for determination of the rental compensation from the date on which the petitioners were dispossessed;
(g) On determination of the rental compensation by the Collector, the same shall be paid to the petitioners by the State Government within a period of one month from the date on which the rental compensation is determined;
(h) It will be open for the State Government to recover the said amount from the First Respondent CIDCO in accordance with law;
(i) All the contentions of the parties on merits on this aspect are kept open;
(j) We direct the First Respondent CIDCO to pay costs of this petition quantified at Rs.25,000/- to the petitioners within a period of two months from today;
(k) The Rule is made absolute on above terms."
14. A perusal of the above-quoted operative portion clearly shows that after having considered the rival submissions, in clause (c), the 6/12 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:51:58 ::: 11_WP8176_16.doc Division Bench of this Court specifically directed the Collector, Thane to consider the case of the petitioners for payment of rental compensation in terms of the Government Resolution dated 01.12.1972, as modified by the subsequent Government Resolution dated 02.04.1979. Hence, a positive direction was issued for considering the case of the petitioners for payment of rental compensation in terms of the said two Government Resolutions. This, despite the fact, that the Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the aforementioned writ petition, was conscious and aware of the judgements of the Supreme Court, upon which, reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioners.
15. We are of the opinion that in the light of the specific directions issued in the above-quoted operative portion of the order, disposing of Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013, it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioners to submit that they ought to be given rental compensation at a rate higher than the rate prescribed in the said Government Resolutions. The rate at which rental compensation was to be paid to the petitioners stood crystalized in terms of the aforementioned direction contained in clause (c) of the above-quoted operative portion of the order, disposing of Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the same and they were of the opinion that they ought to be paid rental compensation @ 15% p.a. instead of 8% p.a. as specified in the Government Resolutions, they ought to have either filed a review application in the context of the said judgement and order dated 17.07.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013 or they should have approached the Supreme Court to challenge the said judgement and order of the Division Bench of this Court. Having failed to do so and the said judgement having attained finality, the petitioners cannot be permitted to initiate a fresh round of litigation in the form of the present writ petition to claim rental compensation at a rate higher than the one 7/12 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:51:58 ::: 11_WP8176_16.doc specified in the said two Government Resolutions.
16. It was open for the petitioners, when Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013 was argued, to contend that the two Government Resolutions were being referred to only to show the fact that the respondent State authorities indeed have a policy for payment of rental compensation and that otherwise, the Government Resolutions do not apply because in the present case, neither the possession was taken through private negotiations nor the acquisition of land was undertaken for any irrigation project. At that point in time, the petitioners did not raise such an argument and the Division Bench of this Court proceeded to issue the said direction of calculating rental compensation for the petitioners by applying the said two Government Resolutions. Therefore, the attempt on the part of the petitioners to claim relief in the present petition is nothing but an attempt to circumvent the specific directions issued in the operative portion of the order dated 17.07.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013.
17. According to the respondent - State authorities, the said judgement and order of the Division Bench of this Court was complied with and rental compensation, as directed, was paid on 16.04.2016.
18. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the State authorities have not complied with even the aforementioned order dated 17.07.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013, inasmuch as rental compensation @8% has been calculated on notional value of the land as on the date of taking possession and not on the value of the land as determined in the land acquisition award and enhanced subsequently by the Reference Court.
19. It is relevant to note here that even the petitioners are not 8/12 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:51:58 ::: 11_WP8176_16.doc disputing the date on which the possession was taken i.e. 10.02.1986, determined by the competent authority of the State and the date of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. 04.11.2008. The document annexed along with the petition shows that while determining the amount of rental compensation of Rs.18,04,632/- actually disbursed to the petitioners, the market value as on the date of taking possession i.e. 10.02.1986 has been recorded as the benchmark. We find that this is clearly erroneous in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgements, as also the policy of the State as reflected in the said Government Resolutions. It is to be noted that in the Government Resolution dated 01.12.1972, which was subsequently modified only as regards the rate of rental compensation by subsequent Government Resolution dated 02.04.1979, specifically records in paragraph 6 that the State Government had decided to pay rental compensation on the final award value in respect of both, non-agricultural and agricultural lands. Thus, we find that the respondent State authorities have indeed committed an error to the extent of calculating the rental compensation on the basis of the market value as on the date of taking possession i.e. 10.02.1986. The rental compensation @ 8% in terms of the Government Resolutions, as directed in the operative portion of the order dated 17.07.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013, ought to have been calculated on the awarded value which, as of now, has been enhanced by the Reference Court. We find that to this limited extent, the petitioners have indeed made out a case in their favour, although their basic prayer of seeking rental compensation @15% p.a. cannot be accepted.
20. We are also conscious of the fact that the petitioners have been deprived of rental compensation for all these years and they had to approach this Court repeatedly for their rightful claim. In this context, we also find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the 9/12 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:51:58 ::: 11_WP8176_16.doc petitioners that further interest ought to be granted for delay in payment of rental compensation. In this regard reference is made to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool District Vs. M. Ramakrishna Reddy (dead) by LRs (supra) as also of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwat Nathu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (judgement and order dated 02.09.2008 in Writ Petition No.4943 of 2008). It is submitted that considering the harassment that the petitioners have suffered at the hands of the respondent - authorities and the fact that they had to repeatedly approach this Court, in addition to the fact that the bank's rate of interest has now increased, this Court may consider granting additional rate of interest @ 9% p.a.
21. The said position of law cannot be disputed by the respondents and hence, we are inclined to consider the prayer for grant of additional interest on the delayed payment of rental compensation. Considering the aforementioned judgements of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion that further interest @6% p.a. for the delayed payment of rental compensation should suffice in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
22. In view of the above, we partly allow the writ petition as follows:-
(a) Respondent No.3 - Collector, Thane shall calculate the rental compensation payable to the petitioners in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the above-quoted operative portion of the order dated 17.07.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.7070 of 2013, on the basis of the market value of the subject land determined in the land acquisition award and subsequently enhanced by the Reference Court in its order dated 02.08.2017;10/12 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:51:58 :::
11_WP8176_16.doc
(b) Since this Court has already concluded hereinabove that the rate at which rental compensation shall be payable will remain @8% p.a. in terms of the said Government Resolutions, the respondent No.3 - Collector, Thane shall calculate the said rate on the basis of the market value, as now determined by the Reference Court;
(c) In terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool District Vs. M. Ramakrishna Reddy (dead) by LRs (supra) as also by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwat Nathu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (judgement and order dated 02.09.2008 in Writ Petition No.4943 of 2008), for delay in disbursal of rental compensation rightfully due to the petitioners, further interest is found to be payable. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we direct that interest @ 6% p.a. shall be paid on the amount of rental compensation from the date of the award i.e. 26.05.2008 till actual disbursal;
(d) The respondent State authorities did disburse amount of Rs.18,04,632/- on 16.04.2016 to the petitioners and hence, interest @ 6% p.a. on the said amount will have to be paid from 26.05.2008 to 16.04.2016. Similarly, such additional interest @ 6% p.a. shall be paid for the balance amount, which shall be calculated in terms of the direction given hereinabove, for the period between 26.05.2008 till actual disbursal;
(e) The aforementioned exercise of calculating the amounts shall be undertaken and the amounts shall be disbursed 11/12 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:51:58 ::: 11_WP8176_16.doc within a period of six weeks from today. Needless to say, the amount already disbursed on 16.04.2016 shall be taken into account by the respondent State authorities;
23. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms;
24. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) MINAL by Digitally signed MINAL SANDIP SANDIP PARAB Date: 2026.01.20 PARAB 15:31:01 +0530 Minal Parab 12/12 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:51:58 :::