Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Pramod vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 February, 2026
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.1 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).10396/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-04-2023
in WP No.2127/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
at Nagpur]
PRAMOD & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 236086/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.183098/2023
- EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 133710/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T., IA No. 101833/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA
No. 107198/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 116551/2023 - STAY APPLICATION)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 11651-11653/2023 (IX)
(IA No. 109789/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 186690/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA
No.109791/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 116553/2023 -
STAY APPLICATION)
Date : 17-02-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR
Mr. Yuvraj Kashyap, Adv.
Mr. Karma Dorjee, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr. Anirudha Mahadevan Sethi, Adv.
Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv.
Mr. Madhav Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2026.02.20
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
16:56:00 IST
Reason: Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
1
Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.
Mr. M. Y. Deshmukh, AOR
Ms. Manjeet Kirpal, Adv.
Ms. Sanyukta N. Suryawanshi, Adv.
Mr. Aswathaman, Adv.
Mr. Atharva D. Kale, Adv.
Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR
Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv.
Mr. Arun R. Patil, Adv.
Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv.
Ms. Apurva, Adv.
Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. We have heard learned senior counsel on behalf of the
petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State and senior
counsel, representing the beneficiary of the subject acquisition.
2. It is not necessary to advert to the details of the subject
acquisition except to point out that a piece of land measuring
about 1555 sq. meters in the Matangpura area, near Shri Sant
Gajanan Maharaj Temple, Shegaon, Maharashtra, is the bone of
contention in the instant matter.
3. Pursuant to a consent order dated 10.05.2019 passed by this
Court in C.A. No.4888/2019 and other connected appeals – namely,
the previous round of litigation between the parties – a fresh
acquisition process was necessitated in accordance with provisions
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short,
the ‘2013 Act’), thereafter, the fresh acquisition process
commenced with the issuance of notification dated 11.07.2019 under
2
Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act.
4. After completing the statutory process, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer determined the compensation amount vide award
dated 16.12.2020. It further seems that most of the affected
persons accepted the compensation, though without prejudice to
their right to seek further enhancement in accordance with law.
5. Consequently, possession of a substantial part of the acquired
land was taken, and we are informed that 97% of the subject project
has been completed.
6. As regards the petitioners before us, they challenged the
subsequent acquisition process before the Bombay High Court at
Nagpur. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High
Court has upheld the acquisition and consequential award referred
to hereinabove.
7. Notwithstanding the same, the High Court also held that the
petitioners are also entitled to 25% additional compensation, over
and above the final amount awarded, purely on consideration of
equity and fairness. That a part of the impugned judgment, not
being under challenge before us at the instance of the respondents,
has thus attained finality.
8. Not only this, the High Court has also granted liberty to the
petitioners to seek further enhancement of compensation under the
2013 Act even after awarding 25% additional compensation. That part
of the judgment has also attained finality.
9. That being so, the visible procedural error sought to be
pointed out on behalf of the petitioners is that no Social Impact
Assessment (as per Section 4 of the 2013 Act) was done before
3
initiation of the fresh acquisition process.
10. However, it is not necessary for us to go into the question as
to whether, such an assessment is to be construed as directory or
mandatory in nature, or, whether, it can be permitted to be
completed even post-acquisition. We say so for the reason that the
respondents before us have taken a fair stance that some
Rehabilitation Scheme has been finalized at their end, and there is
a spirited endeavour to rehabilitate all the affected persons under
that Scheme.
11. It is obvious that the petitioners too are entitled to the
benefit of the stated Rehabilitation Scheme, on par with other
affected persons.
12. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, learned
senior counsel as well as Ms. Pragya Baghel, learned counsel,
representing the petitioners, have made a pointed reference to some
photographs pertaining to a project, which is statedly meant for
the persons who are adversely affected due to the subject
acquisition.
13. In this regard, we clarify that if there is any such space
available within the project where the petitioners can be
accommodated, their claim will have to be considered on a priority
basis. We say so, being mindful of the fact that the petitioners
have also fairly undertaken to not seek further enhancement in
compensation if they are adjusted in that project.
14. We, accordingly, dispose of these special leave petitions,
upholding the subject acquisition as well as the judgment of the
High Court to the extent of granting additional benefit to the
4
petitioners. In addition, we direct that the claim of the
petitioners for rehabilitation under the project pointed out by
them at page 94 of the rejoinder be considered fairly by the
respondents; and if the Authorities decide to adjust them under
that project, the petitioners shall not be entitled to seek further
enhancement in compensation.
15. Moreover, we clarify that if suitable shops are not available
in the above-stated project, the Authorities will make immediate
alternative arrangement(s) for rehabilitating the petitioners in
the same vicinity.
16. It is further directed that once the compensation is
paid/offered to the petitioners as per the final award and
additional amount granted by the High Court, the stay shall be
deemed to have been vacated and the Authorities shall be entitled
to utilise the land for completion of the pending project.
17. The petitioners, to that end, undertake to handover peaceful
and vacant possession of the acquired site to the respondents
within six weeks from today and on doing so, the compensation
amount shall be paid to them simultaneously.
18. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
5
