Bombay High Court
Bapu Daulat Shinde vs Shri. Ramchandra Namdeo Bhujbal And Ors on 9 March, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2026:BHC-AS:11690-DB
8-wp-10293-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10293 OF 2019
Pralhad Pandurang Nevase and Ors. .. Petitioners
V/s.
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors .. Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2790 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10293 OF 2019
Shri. Jayaram Shripati Devdare .. Applicant
V/s.
Pralhad Pandurang Nevase and Ors. .. Respondents
VARSHA WITH
DEEPAK
GAIKWAD INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3918 OF 2019
Digitally signed by
VARSHA DEEPAK
GAIKWAD
IN
Date: 2026.03.10
16:55:01 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 10293 OF 2019
Kailash Haribhau Shivale .. Applicant
V/s.
Pralhad Pandurang Nevase and Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 24076 OF 2019
Sudam Maruti Gaikwad .. Petitioner
V/s.
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors .. Respondents
varsha 1 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:56:55 :::
8-wp-10293-2019.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 24047 OF 2019
Satyawan Haribhau Chahyal And .. Petitioners
Anr
V/s.
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 24048 OF 2019
Bhaiyaso Patilbuwa Mandhare .. Petitioner
V/s.
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 24051 OF 2019
Rajaram Dnyanob Deshmukh And .. Petitioners
Anr
V/s.
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 24055 OF 2019
Popat Jagannath Gaikwad And Ors. .. Petitioners
V/s.
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 24058 OF 2019
Ankush Gulabrao Wable And Ors. .. Petitioners
V/s.
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors .. Respondents
varsha 2 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:56:55 :::
8-wp-10293-2019.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 24120 OF 2019
Narendra Bhauso Gaikwad And Ors. .. Petitioners
V/s.
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors .. Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 43 OF 2020
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 24120 OF 2019
Jayant Kisanrao Virole .. Applicant
V/s.
Narendra Bhauso Gaikwad And Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 24136 OF 2019
Balaso Babanrao Gaware And Ors. .. Petitioners
V/s.
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 24364 OF 2019
Ganpat Jaywant Gawade And Ors. .. Petitioners
V/s.
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 24365 OF 2019
Ramchandra Namdeo Bhujbal And .. Petitioners
Ors.
V/s.
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors .. Respondents
varsha 3 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:56:55 :::
8-wp-10293-2019.doc
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 785 OF 2020
IN
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 24365 OF 2019
Bapu Daulat Shinde .. Applicant
V/s.
Ramchandra Namdeo Bhujbal And .. Respondents
Ors.
-------------------
Mr. Vilas Tapkir with Mrunmayi Khambete and Parth Deshpande, for
the Petitioners in all matter except WPST/24076/2019.
Mr. Sachin Deokar, for the Petitioner in WPST/24076/2014.
Mr. Sumit Khaire, for Respondent No. 5 in WPST/24076/2014.
Mr. Sanjiv A. Sawant with Abhishek Deshmukh and Digvijay Palade
and Bhakti Wast i/by Abhishek Deshmukh, for the Applicant in
IA/3918/2019, IA/2790/2020, IA/43/2020 and IA/785/2020.
Mr. B.V. Samant, Addl. G.P. with M.S. Bane, AGP, for the State in
WP/10293/2019, WPST/24076/2019, WPST/24047/2019,
WP/24048/2019.
Mr. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP, for the State in WPST/24051/2019,
WPST/24055/2019 and WPST/24058/2019.
Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP, for the State in WPST/24120/2019,
WP/24136/2019.
Ms. P.M.J. Deshpande, AGP, for the State in WPST/24364/2019,
WPST/24365/2019.
--------------------
varsha 4 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:56:55 :::
8-wp-10293-2019.doc
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 9th MARCH 2026.
PC:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned AGPs for the State and the learned counsel for the Applicants in some Writ Petitions, being the Project Affected Persons who were put in possession of part of the land as also persons who had purchased land from such Project Affected Persons. We are informed that in the other Writ Petitions some of the Projected Affected Persons have already been made party respondents.
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for all such affected persons.
3. At the outset, it is noted that the principal grievance of the Petitioners is only with regard to their right to be compensated for lands belonging to them being taken over by the State authorities as far back as in the year 1990-1991. The petitioners claim compensation in accordance with law. At this point in time, when decades have gone by, the Petitioners are not really interested in disturbing the Project Affected Persons who were allotted such lands by the State.
4. The Petitioners herein are persons whose lands were located in various Gat Numbers in Shikrapur, Taluka-Shirur, District- Pune.
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published in the Government Gazette dated 02/08/1991 and notification under Section 6 of the said Act was published in the varsha 5 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:56:55 ::: 8-wp-10293-2019.doc Government Gazette dated 14/11/1991. Even according to the Respondents, total 90 Gat Numbers from Shikrapur were the subject matter of such notifications and the acquisition process was undertaken.
5. It is also not disputed that possession of the lands belonging to the Petitioners was taken over in the years 1990-1991.
6. The stand taken by the Respondents-State in its reply affidavit shows that although the acquisition was undertaken for a larger number of Gats, a draft award was prepared for the acquisition of lands located in 82 Gat Numbers. Eventually, the award was passed only in respect of 34 Gat Numbers and 48 Gat Numbers stood excluded from the final award. The purpose of the acquisition was to resettle the affected persons due to the Chaskaman Irrigation Project at Khed.
7. It is also undisputed that the lands belonging to the Petitioners in these Writ Petitions were located in the 48 Gat Numbers that stood excluded from the awards. In fact, the reply affidavit of the State concedes that no award was passed in respect of the lands of the Petitioners located in 48 Gat Numbers that stood excluded when the final award was passed.
8. In this backdrop, the learned counsel for the Petitioners contend that in an identical situation, orders were passed by the Division Benches of this Court recording the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the Respondent-State and it was held that the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 had lapsed. It was also found that the Respondent-Authorities were required to take appropriate steps for the varsha 6 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:56:55 ::: 8-wp-10293-2019.doc acquisition of lands of the Petitioners in accordance with law, to be completed within a stipulated period of time.
9. In this regard, reference was made to the documents at Exhibit-'E-Collectively' being copies of the orders dated 20/03/2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 13450 of 2018 and 11/09/2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 4985 of 2014.
10. It was submitted that this Court may consider allowing the Petitions on the same lines, as the said Writ Petitions also pertain to identical facts situation pertaining to village Shikrapur, Taluka-Shirur, District-Pune.
11. On the reliance placed by the learned AGPs on the judgment of this Court in the case of 'Sumitra Shridhar Khane Vs. Deputy Collector and Ors.'1, it was submitted that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts concerning the said judgment. It was emphasized that in the said judgment there was no discussion on lapsing of the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and, therefore, this Court may consider granting the directions issued in the aforementioned two orders passed in Writ Petition No. 13450 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 4985 of 2014.
12. On the other hand, the learned AGPs for the State vehemently submitted that this Court may consider the said judgment of this Court in the case of 'Sumitra Shridhar Khane Vs. Deputy Collector and Ors.' (supra). Much emphasis was placed on the fact that in these Petitions also the Petitioners had voluntarily given possession of the land and 1 Judgment and order dated 02.05.2025 Writ Petition No. 4987/2022 and connected Writ Petitions varsha 7 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:56:55 ::: 8-wp-10293-2019.doc therefore, even if they are to be held as entitled to compensation, the same ought to be as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act of 1894) and not under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act of 2013).
13. It was emphasized that in respect of land owners whose lands were located in the 34 Gat Numbers wherein the final award was passed would be discriminated against if the Petitioners herein are given the benefit of the Act of 2013.
14. It was also indicated that the Petitioners have approached this Court after considerable delay and the said factor may also have to be taken into consideration.
15. We considered the rival submissions.
16. It is undisputed that the lands of the Petitioners are located in 48 Gat Numbers in respect of which no final award was ever passed by the Land Acquisition Authority.
17. This is evident from the contents of the affidavit dated 17/12/2019 filed by the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition No.22, Pune in Writ Petition No. 10293 of 2019. It is also undisputed that the contents of the said affidavit apply to the facts of all the remaining Writ Petitions. It is necessary to refer to the relevant portion of the said reply affidavit.
18. Paragraphs Nos. 5, 6 and 7 which reads as under:
varsha 8 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:56:55 :::
8-wp-10293-2019.doc
5. I say that, thereafter this Respondent No.3 prepared a Draft Award to acquire the lands from 82 Gat Numbers. In the meanwhile, the Resettlement Officer, Chaskaman Project Khed, sent a report wherein he reported that Project Affected Persons have given preference to only 34 out of total 82 Gats. Nobody was ready to accept rest of the Gat Nos.
Therefore, the Special Land Acquisition Office No. 22, Pune prepared a Final Award for 34 Gat numbers only. Total 48 Gat Numbers were excluded from the Final Award. Also Gat No. 548 was excluded from the Award. Thereafter no Award was passed to acquire the land from Gat No. 548.
6. I say that, the record indicates that, out of 82 Gat Nos. only 34 Gat Numbers were acquired.
However, then Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 22 issued letters to District Resettlement Officer, Pune for further instructions in respect of declaration of award of rest of the Gat Nos. Hereto annexed and marked as 'Exhibit - 3' is the copy of the relevant record.
7. Further I say that, if there is fresh proposal by the District Resettlement Officer to acquire the above mentioned land in Gat No. 548 admeasuring 1 Hectare 02 Ares, this Respondent No. 2 is ready to acquire the said land."
19. The above-quoted contents of the reply affidavit clearly show that insofar as the land of the Petitioners are concerned, no land varsha 9 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:56:55 ::: 8-wp-10293-2019.doc acquisition award was passed under the provisions of the Act of 1894, and the possession was taken way back in the year 1990-1991. Section 11(A) of the Act of 1894 mandates that if an award is not passed within two years of the declaration issued under Section 6 of the said Act, the entire land acquisition proceeding lapses.
20. There can be no doubt about the land acquisition proceeding in the context of the Petitioners having lapsed in view of the stand taken on behalf of the State in the above quoted portion of the reply affidavit, particularly the last line of Paragraph 5, wherein it is stated that no award was passed.
21. Two Division Benches of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 13450 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 4985 of 2014 pertaining to the same acquisition process concerning Shikrapur, Taluka-Shirur, District-Pune, in identical situations and taking note of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer therein, held that the acquisition had lapsed. Further that the Respondents were required to take necessary steps for payment of compensation to the landowners in accordance with law, specifically referring to the Act of 2013.
22. We do not find any reason to take a different view, considering that the facts in these Petitions are also identical to those in Writ Petition No. 13450 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 4985 of 2014.
23. As regards delay on the part of the Petitioners in approaching this Court, even the aforesaid Writ Petitions which were allowed by the said orders by this Court were filed in the years 2014 and 2018. These Writ Petitions were filed in the year 2019.
varsha 10 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:56:55 :::
8-wp-10293-2019.doc
24. Even on the judgment, upon which the learned AGPs have placed much reliance i.e. 'Sumitra Shridhar Khane Vs. Deputy Collector and Ors.' (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has elaborately discussed the aspect of delay and laches. In the said judgment reliance has been placed on various judgments of the Supreme Court on the said aspect of the matter, including in the cases of 'Vidyadevi Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh'2, 'Sukh Datt Ratra and Anr. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors'3 and Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. V/s Bimal Kumar Shah and Ors4., amongst other judgments.
25. After relying upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgments, in the context of the right to property as a constitutional right and a facet of human rights and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the argument pertaining to delay and laches has been rejected.
26. It is settled law that the State cannot take the shelter of delay and laches when it is demonstrated that land of the claimant has been taken over and no compensation has been paid. Such a situation clearly violates Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and, therefore, arguments made on delay and laches on behalf of the State are rejected.
27. As regards reliance placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of 'Sumitra Shridhar Khane Vs. Deputy Collector and Ors.'(supra), we find that in the said judgment the Division Bench of this Court 2 2020 (2) SCC 569 3 2022 (7) SCC 508 4 2024 (10) SCC 533 varsha 11 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:56:55 ::: 8-wp-10293-2019.doc elaborately relied on "Voluntary affidavits" of the land owners therein.
28. In Paragraph 33 of the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court also referred to mutual/consensual/arrangement between the landowners and the Projected Affected Persons, under which possession of lands was taken over of the claimants/land owners.
29. We do not find any such facts in these writ Petitions, and hence the instant Petitions are distinguishable on facts from the said judgment of this Court in the case of 'Sumitra Shridhar Khane Vs. Deputy Collector and Ors.' (supra).
30. In any case, in the said judgment of this Court there is absolutely no reference to Section 11A of the Act of 1894, pertaining to lapsing of acquisition, as opposed to specific observations made in the orders passed by the Division Benches of this Court in Writ Petition No. 13450 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 4985 of 2014. This is not even a case of lapsing of acquisition claimed by the Petitioners under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, simply for the reason that in the present case, as per the admissions given on behalf of the State in the above-quoted portion of the reply affidavit, no award was ever passed in respect of the taking over of lands of the Petitioners.
31. On this count also we find these Writ Petitions to be distinguishable from the facts considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Sumitra Shridhar Khane Vs. Deputy Collector and Ors.' (supra).
32. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to take a view different from what the two Division Benches of this Court have taken varsha 12 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:56:55 ::: 8-wp-10293-2019.doc and granted relief to similarly situated Petitioners.
33. We find that the Petitioners in the said petitions were identically situated like the Petitioners herein. In fact, in Paragraph 5 of the order of this Court dated 11/09/2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 4985 of 2014, the Division Bench of this Court specifically referred to the manner in which only 34 Gat Numbers were subject matter of the land acquisition award out of the 84 Gat Numbers in respect of which proceedings were undertaken. There is no reason for us to take a different view in the matter.
34. We also find that in such cases, the writ Court is not expected to be restrained by technicalities and the constitutional right of the Petitioners under Section 300-A has to be given its due.
35. In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed.
36. It is held that in the light of the specific admission given on behalf of the Respondent- State that no award was ever passed in respect of the Gat Numbers in which the land of the Petitioners is located, the acquisition proceedings had clearly lapsed.
37. It is also admitted position that the possession of the lands was taken ever without due process of law and, hence, the Respondent- State is obliged to undertake necessary steps for acquisition of the land and payment of compensation to the Petitioners in terms of the only statute now available for the said purpose i.e. the Act of 2013.
38. Accordingly, the Respondent-State is directed to take necessary steps under the Act of 2013 and pass an award within a period of nine varsha 13 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:56:55 ::: 8-wp-10293-2019.doc months from today.
39. In view of the above, Writ Petitions are allowed in the aforesaid manner. We are of the opinion that no further orders are necessary in the pending Interim Applications or in the context of the project affected persons. Hence, all the Interim Applications are also disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
varsha 14 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:56:55 :::