Bombay High Court
Vaibhav Ramrao Kharat And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 17 February, 2026
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2026:BHC-AUG:7159-DB
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3703 OF 2025
Anirudh Subash Naik ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. Land Acquisition Officer for
State highway (Special) No. 2(A)
viz. Jalna-Nanded Expressway
Sub Divisional Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
3. District Level Committee, Parbhani,
through its Secretary,
The Sub Divisional Officer / Land
Acquisition Officer, Taluka Sailu,
District Parbhani.
4. The Collector Parbhani
Collector Office, Parbhani.
5. The MSRDC
Through its MD, Mumbai ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3229 OF 2025
1. Babasaheb S/o. Ganpatrao Shewale
2. Mahananda W/o. Manikrao Chandne
3. KantabaiW/o.Dattarao Raut ... Petitioners
Versus
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{2}
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
1-A The Collector, Parbhani.
2. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018 through its
Secretary, the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
3. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5709 OF 2025
1. Vitthal S/o. Narayan Gadekar
2. Punjab S/o. Govindrao Gadekar
3. Amol @ Bhagwan S/o. Abasaheb Gadekar
4. Lakshman S/o. Ganesh Gadekar
5. Nikita W/o. Amol Gadekar
6. Priyanka W/o. Sarjerao Gadekar
7. Mandakini W/o. Kalyan Gadekar
8. Sadhana W/o. Sanjay Gadekar
9. Vanita W/o. Jeevan Gadekar ... Petitioners
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{3}
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 8302 OF 2025
1. Vijay Dnyanoba Kharat
2. Gopal Manohar Jadhav
3. Siddharth Manaji Ghansawant
4. Safiyabi Ambirkha Pathan
5. Amrutrao Narayanrao Shinde ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{4}
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13737 OF 2025
1. Ajinkya S/o. Pradiprao Naik
2. Abhijit S/o. Pradiprao Naik
3. Subhash S/o. Chaburao Naik
4. Shankar S/o. Kishanrao Jadhav ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{5}
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13734 OF 2025
1. Krushna S/o.Vijay Take
2. Vijay S/o. Apparao Take
3. Mahesh S/o. Narayan Take
4. Anirudha S/o. Kundlikrao Take
5. Pandharinath S/o. Kondiba Take
6. Chandrakalabai W/o. Bapurao Take
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{6}
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13735 OF 2025
1. Datta S/o.Shankar Deshmane
2. Anjali W/o. Shadanan Deshmane
3. Ramesh S/o. Baburao Ibitwar
4. Pralhad S/o. Santukrao Padghan
5. Sayyad Lal S/o.Sayyad Kasam
6. Sayyad Mastan S/o. Sayyad Amin
7. Sayyad Jalal S/o. Sayyad Amin
8. Sayyad Mahemud S/o. Sayyad Amin
9. Sayyad Abrar S/o. Sayyad Bashir
10. Ganesh S/o. Sahebrao Mundhe
11. Santosh S/o. Babarao Bodkhe
12. Girjabai W/o. Sahebrao Mundhe
13. Narayan S/o. Bapurao Bodkhe
14. Kaveri Maroti Bodkhe
15. Digambar S/o. Bapu Masure
16. Jijabhau S/o. Sahebrao Dhapse
17. Bhagwan S/o.Devrao Abuj
18. Nirmala W/o. Narayan Rokade
19. Bapurao S/o. Kundlikrao Rokade
20. Santosh S/o. Uttamrao Saruk
21. Bajirao S/o. Bhimrao Bodkhe ... Petitioners
Versus
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{7}
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13739 OF 2025
1. Ganesh S/o. Ashroba Gadekar
2. Gajanan S/o. Raosaheb Gadekar
3. Suresh S/o. Kishanrao Gadekar
4. Digambar S/o. Nivrutti Gadekar
5. Bhagwan S/o. Vitthalrao Wandhe
6. Taterao S/o. Govindrao Gayakwad ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{8}
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13738 OF 2025
1. Ramesh S/o. Gangadhar Kharat
2. Suvarna W/o. Bappasaheb Kharat
3. Sujata W/o. Ramrao Kharat
4. Saraswati W/o. Dattarao Kharat ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{9}
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13027 OF 2025
1. Prakash Ashroba Nirval
2. Rajendra Babasaheb Gadekar
3. Rekha Mahadev Dhavale (Died)
Through L.Rs. Petitioner No.4
4. Sarjerao Mahadevrao Dhavale
5. Pradeep Dattatray Gadekar
6. Shrinivas Dattatray Gadekar
7. Kishor Balasaheb Gadekar
8. Dnyaneshwar Shivaji Gadekar
9. Balasaheb Govindrao Gaikwad
10. Tushar Taterao Gaikwad
11. Sunita Taterao Gaikwad
12. Laxmibai Balasaheb Gaikwad
13. Savita Ashroba Gadekar
14. Shivaji Gulabrao Gadekar
15.Shrinivas Murlidhar Takey
16. Prabhakar Shankarrao Takey
17. Pralhad Sukhdeorao Nirval
18. Parikshit Prabhakar Takey
19. Hrishikesh Prabhakar Takey ... Petitioners
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{10}
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036.
6. The District Superintendent Agriculture
Officer, Parbhani.
7. The Taluka Agricultural Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
8. The District Superintendent of Land Records
District Parbhani.
9. The Tahsildar, Sailu,
Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13026 OF 2025
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{11}
1. Annapurna Vaijnath Masure
2. Dnyaneshwar Balkrishna Lakhamale
3. Padmavati Balkrishna Lakhamale
4. Rangnath Apparao Dhapse
5. Sadanand Digambar Masure
6. Parvatibai Sahebrao Thorat
7. Prabhu Sahebrao Thorat
8. Gangadhar Apparao Dhapse
9. Devrao Ranuji Abuj
10. Ashok Digambar Masure
11. Tukaram Sahebrao Dhapse
12. Shadanand Shankarrao Deshmane
13. Sudamati Tukaram Pitale
14. Prakash Rambhau Dhapse
15.Tukaram Haribhai Mundhe
16. Janardhan Bapusaheb (Wamanrao)
Choudhari
17. Daivashala Dattatray Deshmane
18. Abhijeet Shadanand Deshman
19. Amir Khan Wahed Khan Pathan
20. Juber Wahed Khan Pathan
21. Bapu Rambhau Sonawane (Died)
Through L.Rs.
21A Anjanabai Bapurao Sonawane
21B Rambhau Bapurao Sonawane
21C Laxman Bapurao Sonawane
22. Rabhoji Bapurao Sonwane
23. Manik Bapurao Sonwane
24. Tukaram Nivrutti Pitale ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{12}
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036.
6. The District Superintendent Agriculture
Officer, Parbhani.
7. The Taluka Agricultural Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
8. The District Superintendent of Land Records
District Parbhani.
9. The Tahsildar, Sailu,
Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13020 OF 2025
1. Vaibhav Ramrao Kharat
2. Harshad Ramrao Kharat
3. Asaram Baban Fand ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{13}
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036.
6. The District Superintendent Agriculture
Officer, Parbhani.
7. The Taluka Agricultural Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
8. The District Superintendent of Land Records
District Parbhani.
9. The Tahsildar, Sailu,
Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13024 OF 2025
1. Mandodari Sonaji Panchal
2. Kosabai Maroji Jogdand
3. Kailash Uttamrao Ikkar
4. Shivaji Babanrao Lingayat
5. Bhagwan Munjaji Shinde
6. Trymbak Kishanrao Ikkar
7. Baban Hiraji Jogdand
8. Rajebhau Punjaji Jogdand
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{14}
9. Maroti Munjaji Shinde
10. Motiram Sudhakar Lagad
11. Tukaram Shivajirao Ikkar
12. Rakhamaji Sundar Ikkar
13. Pralhad Kundlikrao Ikkar
14. Waman Ashroba Kathole
15. Vishnu Ankushrao Ikkar
16. Kundlik Munjaji Ikkar
17. Vaishali Motiram Lagad
18. Satyabhamabai Shivajirao Katare
19. Sheshrao Sanjabrao Katare ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{15}
6. The District Superintendent Agriculture
Officer, Parbhani.
7. The Taluka Agricultural Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
8. The District Superintendent of Land Records
District Parbhani.
9. The Tahsildar, Sailu,
Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13018 OF 2025
1. Ramkrishan Dattarao Take
2. Subhash Uddhavrao Take
3. Nilawati Dattatray Take
4. Dhuraji Dagadoba Take
5. Sopan Rajaram Take ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{16}
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036.
6. The District Superintendent Agriculture
Officer, Parbhani.
7. The Taluka Agricultural Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
8. The District Superintendent of Land Records
District Parbhani.
9. The Tahsildar, Sailu,
Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13025 OF 2025
1. Vasant Kishanrao Jadhav
2. Dilip Kishanrao Jadhav
3. Priti Pradeeprao Naik
4. Rehana Babalal Tashildhar
5. Tukaram Dadarao Deshmukh
6. Digambar Kisanrao Jadhav ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{17}
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036.
6. The District Superintendent Agriculture
Officer, Parbhani.
7. The Taluka Agricultural Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
8. The District Superintendent of Land Records
District Parbhani.
9. The Tahsildar, Sailu,
Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13019 OF 2025
1. Ratnamala Uddhavrao Javale
2. Vaijnath Haribhau Ghansawant
3. Vishwanath Haribhau Ghansawant ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{18}
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036.
6. The District Superintendent Agriculture
Officer, Parbhani.
7. The Taluka Agricultural Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
8. The District Superintendent of Land Records
District Parbhani.
9. The Tahsildar, Sailu,
Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13022 OF 2025
1. Bhagubai Shripatrao Shewale
2. Shridhar Vishwambhar Jadhav
3. Vishal Vishwambhar Jadhav
4. Vishwambhar Dattatrao Jadhav
5. Sandhya Kalyan Jadhav
6. Shantanu Prabhakar Jadhav
7. Madhukar Babarao Jadhav
8. Kalyan Digambarrao Jadhav
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{19}
9. Manohar Dattarao Jadhav
10. Gopal Manohar Jadhav
11. Rameshwar Devidas Ikkar
12. Arjun Kisanrao Jadhav
13. Pandit Gopinathrao Jadhav
14. Janabai Narayan Jadhav (died)
through L.Rs.
15.1 Sukdeo Narayanrao Jadhav
15.2 Somitra Vinayak Jadhav
16. Sonaji Gopinathrao Jadhav
17. Satish Limbaji Raut
18. Amol Limbaji Raut
19. Tanhaji Bramhaji Raut
20. Babasaheb Gururakhami Bidkar ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{20}
6. The District Superintendent Agriculture
Officer, Parbhani.
7. The Taluka Agricultural Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
8. The District Superintendent of Land Records
District Parbhani.
9. The Tahsildar, Sailu,
Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13740 OF 2025
1. Vasant S/o. Gulabrao Ikkar
2. Srikant S/o. Gopalrao Ikkar
3. Ayodhya W/o. Nagorao Ikkar
4. Kisanrao S/o.Ashroba Kathole
5. Sunderrao S/o. Vitthalrao Ikkar
6. Munja S/o. Shivaji Ikkar
7. Parmeshwar S/o. Devidas Ikkar
8. Saraswati W/o. Ankushrao Ikkar
9. Narayan S/o. Ankushrao Ikkar
10. Rakhmaji S/o.Bhaurao Ikkar
11. Rohidas S/o. Bhaurao Ikkar
12. Ramkishan S/o. Piraji Jogdand ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department
(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Collector, Parbhani.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{21}
3. The Committee for Parbhani District
Constituted under the Government
Order dated 29.05.2018
Through its Secretary,
the Sub Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer,
Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. Land Acquisition Officer for
acquisition of land for State Highway
from Jalna to Nanded/Sub Divisional
Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
5. The Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,
Mumbai-400036. ... Respondents
......
Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Chinmay Acharya,
Advocate and Mr. Yadhunath Chaudhari i/by Mr. Patik Bhosale, Advocate for
Petitioner in WP/3703/2025
Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Omkar Kulkarni, Advocate i/by Mr.
Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for Petitioners in WP/13025/2025
Mr. Rajesh Kachare, Advocate h/f Mr. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for petitioners in
WP/13024/2025
Mr. Pratik A. Bhosale, Advocate for Petitioner in respective matters
Mr. Ajeet B. Kale a/w Ms. Sakshi A. Kale, Advocate for Petitioners in
respective matters
Mr. Amol B. Chalak, Advocate for Petitioner in respective matters
Mr. Milind Sathe, Advocate General for Respondent-State in WP/3703/2025
Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader, Mr. R.S. Wani, AGP for Respondent
State in respective matters
Mr. Vijay Patil, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. A.V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for MSRDC
......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 09 JANYARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 17 FEBRUARY, 2026
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{22}
JUDGMENT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
parties, the petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage of
admission.
2. The petitioners in all the aforesaid petitions are agriculturists
whose lands are sought to be acquired for the public purpose of
construction of State Highway (Special) No. 2A, being an 8-lane Super
Express Highway proposed from Jalna to Nanded, which is intended to
function as an extension of the existing Nagpur-Mumbai Samruddhi
Highway. At the time of institution of these petitions, the primary
challenge raised by the petitioners was to the communication dated 10 th
January 2025 issued by the Collector, Parbhani. However, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer in respect
of the said State Highway passed an award dated 29 th September 2025.
Consequently, all the petitioners, by way of amendment to their
respective petitions, have extended their challenge to the said award,
substantially on similar and overlapping grounds. Since all these
petitions involve identical questions of law and arise out of the same
subject matter pertaining to the said acquisition proceedings, they were
heard together. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar
appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3703 of 2025 and
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{23}
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Surel Shah appearing in Writ Petition No.
13025 of 2025 advanced elaborate submissions. The learned advocates
appearing in the connected petitions adopted the arguments advanced
by the aforesaid learned senior counsels and have also tendered written
submissions. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State of
Maharashtra and its officers, and Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vijay Patil
appearing on behalf of respondent MSRDC, also advanced common
arguments opposing all the petitions. In view of the commonality of
issues, pleadings, and arguments, all the aforesaid petitions are being
decided by this common judgment and order.
3. The factual background giving rise to the present writ petitions,
as placed on record by the petitioners, indicates that the State of
Maharashtra, by Government Resolution dated 12 th May 2015,
constituted a District Level Committee for the purpose of acquisition of
lands through agreement with landholders for irrigation and other
public projects in the State. The said Committee was constituted under
the Chairmanship of the Collector, with the Land Acquisition Officer
acting as its Secretary, and District Heads of various Government
Departments were appointed as members of the said Committee.
Thereafter, on 29th May 2018, the Government of Maharashtra issued a
further Government Order stipulating that whenever land is to be
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{24}
acquired for construction of a highway under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Highways Act, the compensation payable under Section
19B of the said Act is required to be determined in accordance with the
provisions contained in Sections 26 to 30 and Schedule I of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
"the New Land Acquisition Act"). It is the case of the petitioners that if a
landholder agrees to accept such compensation and enters into an
agreement with the Government, then in addition to the compensation
so determined, an additional amount of 25% of such compensation is
required to be paid to the landholder over and above the statutory
compensation. The said Government Order further provided that the
decision regarding payment of the additional 25% amount is to be
taken by the District Level Committee constituted under the
Government Resolution dated 12th May 2015.
4. The petitioners further state that on 26 th November 2021, a
notification under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Highways Act was
published declaring the proposed road from Jalna to Nanded,
connecting to the Samruddhi Highway, as a State Highway for the
purposes of the said Act, and the lands belonging to the petitioners
were included in the said notification for acquisition. Pursuant thereto,
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{25}
a Joint Measurement Survey in accordance with Section 16 of the said
Act was conducted on 10th January 2022, for which notices were issued
to the District Agricultural Officer and other concerned departmental
officers to remain present. The measurement of lands proposed to be
acquired from nine villages namely Chikalthana (Khurd), Chikalthana
(Budruk), Jawla Jiwaji, Raipur, Hathnur, Vaalur, Thandulwadi, Hatta
and Gulkhand, all situated in Sailu Taluka of Parbhani District, was
carried out in the presence of officers from all concerned departments
including the Agricultural Department, as the survey also included
enumeration and valuation of trees standing on the lands proposed to
be acquired. The survey report was prepared and read over to the
landowners on 2nd May 2022 and thereafter the final Joint
Measurement Survey Report was prepared on 16 th June 2022.
Subsequently, as per the procedure prescribed under the s aid Act, a
declaration under Section 18(2) was published on 3 rd November 2022,
as a consequence of which the lands mentioned therein stood vested in
the State Government with effect from the said date.
5. The petitioners further contend that proceedings for
determination of valuation of lands under Section 19B of the said Act
were initiated by Respondent No. 3, the Land Acquisition Officer for the
said project, who called for valuation reports from all concerned
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{26}
departments in respect of land, trees, timber, wells and other
improvements existing on the acquired lands. In response thereto, the
Agricultural Department submitted two reports dated 10th April 2023
and 17th April 2023 relating to valuation of trees based on the Joint
Measurement Survey. It is further stated that on 14 th May 2023, the
then Collector of Parbhani visited lands in four out of the nine affected
villages and orally directed the Agricultural Department to submit a
fresh valuation report. According to the petitioners, pursuant to such
oral directions, the Agricultural Department submitted a second
valuation report dated 23rd May 2023 based on Google Earth image
data. The petitioners assert that the landowners were never informed
about preparation of this second valuation report and that the same was
prepared behind their back. It is further alleged that without granting
any opportunity of hearing to the landowners, the compensation
amount under Section 19B(6) of the said Act was directly determined
by the District Level Committee for Parbhani District constituted under
the Government Order dated 29th May 2018 in its meeting dated 9 th
June 2023.
6. The petitioners submit that when the authorities realized the
procedural illegality in convening the meeting dated 9 th June 2023
without hearing the landowners as mandated under Section 19B(6),
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{27}
notices for personal hearing were subsequently issued by the Land
Acquisition Officer, and the landowners participated in such hearings
and raised objections particularly to the second valuation report which
was prepared based on KML files and Google image data. It is further
contended that the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation
(MSRDC), being the acquiring body, had in its meeting dated 3 rd
January 2023 issued specific directions that no extraneous material
other than the Joint Measurement Survey Report should be relied upon
while preparing valuation reports. The petitioners state that upon
noticing existence of two distinct valuation reports prepared by the
Agricultural Department and after considering objections raised by
landowners, the Land Acquisition Officer sought guidance from the
Superintending Agricultural Officer regarding which report should be
relied upon. The Superintending Agricultural Officer, by communication
dated 30th August 2024, informed that the valuation reports prepared
in April 2023 were based upon the Joint Measurement Survey
conducted in accordance with statutory provisions and further in view
of guidelines issued by MSRDC, the first valuation report ought to be
accepted and the second valuation report dated 23 rd May 2023 ought to
be ignored.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter Respondent No. 3,
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{28}
after considering all relevant factors, passed an order under Section 19B
of the said Act on 3rd September 2024 determining the compensation
payable. It is further stated that on 9 th September 2024, the Land
Acquisition Officer forwarded a proposal along with the order under
Section 19B determining compensation, to the District Level Committee
for decision regarding payment of additional 25% compensation as per
Government policy. The petitioners further state that the meeting of the
District Level Committee was held on 4th October 2024 and as per
minutes of the said meeting, which were obtained by the landowners,
under RTI, the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition
Officer on the basis of the first valuation report was accepted. According
to the petitioners, they and other landowners gave their consent for
acquisition of their lands based on the April 2023 valuation report and
compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer on
3rd September 2024, which stood accepted by the District Level
Committee on 4th October 2024.
8. The petitioners further state that thereafter no steps were taken
by the authorities towards actual payment of compensation in terms of
the decision dated 4th October 2024 and that the petitioners later
gathered information that the respondents were not willing to proceed
in accordance with the said decision and instead intended to act in
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{29}
terms of the earlier decision dated 9 th June 2023. It is further stated
that by communication dated 10th January 2025, the Collector,
Parbhani, addressed a letter to the Land Acquisition Officer stating that
in a review meeting held by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra
on 9th January 2025 regarding the Samruddhi Highway Project,
directions were issued to grant compensation in accordance with the
decision taken by the District Level Committee in its meeting dated 9 th
June 2023 and accordingly to prepare and finalise the award. The
petitioners, therefore, by carrying out amendments to the petitions,
have challenged the award on various grounds including the contention
that the decision taken in the meeting dated 9 th June 2023 is illegal and
contrary to law as the same was taken without granting hearing to
landowners as contemplated under Sections 19B(6) and 19B(7) of the
Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955. It is further the contention of the
petitioners that once the landowners had given their consent to the
decision taken in the meeting dated 4th October 2024, the respondents
are estopped from resiling from their promise to pay compensation as
determined and accepted in the said meeting.
9. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhakephalkar, appearing on behalf of
the petitioners, submitted that upon publication of the notification
under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Highways Act in the Official
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{30}
Gazette on 26th November 2021, due process as contemplated under
law was strictly followed by the authorities. He submitted that a
physical Joint Measurement Survey was duly conducted in the presence
of the petitioners as well as representatives of various Government
Departments. During the course of the said survey, spot panchanamas
were drawn and Form No. 16 was duly prepared, recording total
measurement of each landholding, nature of land and details of
structures and appurtenances standing thereon including houses, cattle
sheds, wells, trees and other improvements. The learned counsel
submitted that the panchanamas so prepared were thereafter published
and finalized on 6th June 2022. He further submitted that subsequent to
completion of the Joint Measurement Survey, declaration under Section
18(1) of the Maharashtra Highways Act came to be published on 3 rd
November 2022 and upon such declaration being issued, a statutory
consequence followed whereby the petitioners lost the right to object to
acquisition proceedings and the acquired lands stood vested in the State
Government with effect from 3rd November 2022.
10. It was further submitted that thereafter the Land Acquisition
Officer initiated proceedings for determination of compensation under
Section 19B of the said Act by calling for valuation reports from all
concerned departments. All departments submitted valuation reports
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{31}
determining valuation of lands and attached assets. However, he
submitted that thereafter the Collector constituted an ad hoc committee
under the chairmanship of the Deputy Collector to visit the fields and
assess valuation of trees standing on the acquired lands. The learned
counsel submitted that such constitution of an ad hoc committee was
neither prescribed nor warranted under the statutory framework. He
submitted that the said ad-hoc committee conducted inspection behind
the back of the petitioners on 16th May 2023 and submitted a report to
the Collector, pursuant to which the Collector directed the Agricultural
Department to submit a fresh valuation report based on KML files and
Google Earth geographical data instead of relying upon the Joint
Measurement Survey report. According to the learned counsel, acting
upon such directions, the Agricultural Department prepared and
submitted a second valuation report which is contrary to the provisions
of law and decision of MSRDC not to consider extraneous material
while preparing valuation report.
11. He further submitted that on 9th June 2023, a meeting of the
District Level Committee was held wherein the second valuation report
was placed for discussion and was accepted. The learned counsel
argued that even in the said meeting no opportunity of hearing was
granted to the petitioners to raise objections or suggestions regarding
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{32}
the second valuation report and therefore there was a clear violation of
Section 19B of the said Act, rendering the entire meeting and
proceedings void and unsustainable. He further submitted that when
the authorities realized that the meeting dated 9 th June 2023 was held
without granting hearing to the landowners as mandated under Section
19B(6) and (7), notices of personal hearing dated 12 th June 2023 were
issued and hearings were conducted on 26 th June 2023. During the said
hearings, the petitioners submitted written objections highlighting
various statutory parameters required to be followed while determining
compensation and objected to the manner and procedure adopted for
preparation of the second valuation report as well as ignoring the first
valuation report based on Joint Measurement Survey.
12. The learned counsel submitted that thereafter the Land
Acquisition Officer issued a further notice dated 20th February 2024
scheduling personal hearing on 27th February 2024 and the petitioners
submitted detailed written submissions on 26th February 2024 relying
upon decision of MSRDC dated 3rd January 2023 directing that
compensation should be computed on the basis of Joint Measurement
Survey. It was further submitted that thereafter the Land Acquisition
Officer sought opinion from the Agricultural Department regarding
which of the two valuation reports should be considered. The
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{33}
Agricultural Department by its letter dated 30 th August 2024 clarified
that the first valuation reports dated 10th April 2023 and 17th April 2023
were prepared strictly in accordance with statutory rules and procedure
and that the second valuation report was prepared only pursuant to
directions of the Collector based on KML data. The learned counsel
submitted that the said communication specifically opined that the first
valuation reports were correct and that the second valuation report
prepared on the basis of third party committee inputs was not
appropriate.
13. The learned counsel then submitted that a plain reading of
Section 19B read with Section 19C and other related provisions makes
it abundantly clear that determination of compensation is a statutory
function vested exclusively with the Land Acquisition Officer and since
such determination requires issuance of public notice, inviting claims,
granting hearing and thereafter adjudicating compensation, the
function is quasi judicial in nature. He submitted that such function
must be performed independently by the Land Acquisition Officer
without any guidance, direction or interference from the Collector,
Government or any other authority. The learned counsel submitted that
after considering objections of the landowners and reply of the
Agricultural Department, the Land Acquisition Officer passed a
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{34}
reasoned order noting discrepancies between valuation reports and
clarification issued by the Agricultural Department vide letter dated 30 th
August 2024 and thereafter determined compensation under Section
19B by order dated 2nd September 2024, which was duly served upon
petitioners through concerned Talathi.
14. The learned counsel submitted that thereafter, upon completion
of adjudication, the Land Acquisition Officer forwarded proposal dated
9th September 2024 to the Collector for placing before the District Level
Committee in terms of Government Resolutions dated 12 th May 2015
and 29th May 2018 for the purpose of offering direct purchase of land by
agreement by offering 25% additional compensation over and above the
compensation determined under Section 19B. He submitted that in the
meeting of the District Level Committee held on 4 th October 2024, after
detailed deliberations, the determination made by the Land Acquisition
Officer was approved, as reflected in the minutes of the said meeting.
He further submitted that thereafter all affected farmers by
communication dated 7th January 2025 conveyed their consent to
accept compensation as approved in the meeting dated 4 th October
2024.
15. The learned counsel further submitted that since the Land
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{35}
Acquisition Officer is a quasi judicial authority, any interference by the
Collector, Minister or District Level Committee contrary to statutory
scheme is opposed to the letter and spirit of the Maharashtra Highways
Act and settled principles of law. He submitted that the District Level
Committee is a body created by Government Resolutions issued under
Article 162 of the Constitution of India read with statutory provisions
and its role is limited. According to him, compensation must be
determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter placed before
the District Level Committee only for approval in terms of Government
policy. He submitted that once the determination made by the Land
Acquisition Officer on 2nd September 2024 was approved by the District
Level Committee on 4th October 2024, the same attained finality and
became binding on the Government. He further submitted that the
decision to offer additional 25% compensation upon consent of
landowners was accepted by the District Level Committee to avoid
litigation and that mere disagreement by the Collector, who is only one
member of the Committee, is inconsequential particularly when thirteen
out of sixteen members approved and signed the minutes of meeting
dated 4th October 2024.
16. The learned counsel further submitted that the directions
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{36}
allegedly issued by the Collector in letter dated 10 th January 2025 based
on oral instructions of higher authorities were dehors the provisions of
the Maharashtra Highways Act and Government Resolutions of 2015
and 2018. He therefore submitted that subsequent decisions of the
District Level Committee dated 4th August 2025 and second
determination of compensation dated 7th August 2025 by the Land
Acquisition Officer are illegal and unsustainable. He further submitted,
relying upon judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh , (2019) 9 SCC
304, that under the scheme of the Maharashtra and National Highways
laws, award is not merely an offer but is determination of compensation
and therefore contention that award is only an offer is legally
untenable.
17. He further submitted that under the Government Resolution, the
District Level Committee has two-fold powers, namely to advise
generally regarding compensation and to decide valuation for purpose
of agreement-based acquisition and that only where the Land
Acquisition Officer determines compensation exceeding such advice,
approval is required. According to him, in the present case since
determination dated 2nd September 2024 was approved on 4th October
2024, the matter attained finality and if the Government was aggrieved,
it ought to have invoked arbitration under Section 19B rather than
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{37}
interfering administratively. He submitted that intervention by the
Collector and reference to the Chief Minister is wholly illegal. He
further submitted that even assuming Government was unwilling to pay
25% additional compensation by agreement, the base compensation
determined under Section 19B ought to have been paid to landowners.
18. The learned counsel therefore submitted that subsequent decision
of the District Level Committee dated 4th August 2025, issuance of
second notice dated 7th August 2025 for fresh determination of
compensation and second award dated 29th September 2025 are wholly
illegal. He submitted that the Maharashtra Highways Act does not
contemplate any concept of second determination, second award or
review of award. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon
the judgments in Radhika Bhalerao vs State of Maharashtra, 2022 (4)
Mh.L.J. 797 and Centre for PIL v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 1.
19. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Surel Shah, appearing for the
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 13025 of 2025, submitted that the
petitioner, in substance, seeks enforcement of the decision of the
District Level Committee dated 4th October 2024 and a consequential
direction that the determination of compensation arrived at by the Land
Acquisition Officer on 2nd/3rd September 2024 be appropriately drawn
up and reflected by way of an award, and in the same breath the
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{38}
petition also lays a direct challenge to the purported award dated
29th/30th September 2025 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He
submitted that the petitioner's land has been acquired for the purpose
of a Special State Highway under the Maharashtra State Highways Act.
He argued that in all statutory regimes governing compulsory
acquisition, the Legislature provides for appointment of a Land
Acquisition Officer for the purpose of determining the amount payable
as compensation to an expropriated owner, and under the scheme of
the Maharashtra State Highways Act it is only the Land Acquisition
Officer who is vested with the authority to determine compensation. He
further submitted that, unlike the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Maharashtra State
Highways Act does not contemplate "passing of an award" in the
classical sense, and, therefore, the determination of compensation made
by the Land Acquisition Officer under the said Act attains finality,
subject only to the statutory remedy of arbitration. In that context, he
invited attention to Section 19B(8) of the Act which provides that if
either party is dissatisfied with the compensation determined by the
Land Acquisition Officer, the remedy is to approach the arbitrator,
thereby underscoring the legislative intent that the determination made
by the Land Acquisition Officer is final and binding unless displaced in
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{39}
arbitration; consequently, neither the Collector nor the State
Government has jurisdiction to sit in review or to modify such
determination. He urged that it is a settled principle of law that where
the statute mandates a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must
be done in that manner and in no other, and in support of this
proposition he placed reliance upon the Privy Council decis28ion in
Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad (1940).
20. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the duties
discharged by the Land Acquisition Officer under the Maharashtra State
Highways Act are quasi-judicial in character, which position, according
to him, is well settled. He submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer is
required to invite objections to the proposed valuation, grant hearing to
persons interested, consider their objections, and then determine
compensation by applying the statutory factors enumerated in Section
19B(10) of the said Act. He further contended that Section 19D of the
Act vests the Land Acquisition Officer with certain powers of a Civil
Court, which further reinforces the quasi-judicial nature of the function.
On this premise, it was argued that unless the statute expressly confers
a power of review, annulment, reversal or modification, neither the
Collector nor the State can assume such power in relation to the
determination rendered by the Land Acquisition Officer. He then
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{40}
submitted that after vesting of land under Section 18(1), and having
regard to Section 19A of the Act, it is only the Land Acquisition Officer
or the Highway Authority or persons authorised by them who may enter
upon the land vested in the Government for purposes connected with
the highway, and the Collector has no jurisdiction to visit the lands and
conduct any purported survey, that too unilaterally.
21. The learned Senior Counsel also countered the stand of the
respondents that in the meeting dated 9 th June 2023 the compensation
determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was approved and,
therefore, the subsequent meeting dated 4 th October 2024, which
approved a different compensation, could not be regarded as valid. He
submitted that such submission is fallacious for multiple reasons.
Firstly, according to him, what was placed before the District Level
Committee on 9th June 2023 was not a determination of compensation
arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer in accordance with the
statutory procedure, but at best a valuation placed for consideration.
Secondly, he submitted that no hearing as contemplated under Section
19B(6) was afforded to the landowners prior to the so-called approval
on 9th June 2023. Thirdly, he pointed out that the notice under Section
19B(6) itself was issued only on 12 th June 2023, which, in his
submission, demonstrates that the statutory process of inviting claims
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{41}
and hearing could not have been completed prior to 9 th June 2023.
Fourthly, he contended that a perusal of the determination of
compensation dated 2nd/3rd September 2024 would unequivocally show
that the Land Acquisition Officer applied his mind to the material on
record, adjudicated upon the objections raised by the landowners, and
thereafter determined the compensation by a reasoned exercise, as
mandated by the Act. He therefore submitted that once such
compensation stood determined, if the State was aggrieved, the only
course open in law was to invoke the statutory remedy under Section
19B(8) before the arbitrator, and the Collector or the State could not
assume the role of an appellate or revisional authority and direct a fresh
determination. He submitted that the entire exercise culminating in the
impugned award is founded upon the communication dated 10 th
January 2025, which, according to him, is without jurisdiction and is
null and void ab initio; and it is a settled principle that if the foundation
fails, the superstructure must necessarily fall. Consequently, he
submitted that the purported award dated 29th September 2025, being
without jurisdiction and being the product of the Collector's
communication dated 10th January 2025, is liable to be quashed and
set aside.
22. The learned Senior Counsel further emphasized that a power of
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{42}
review is not inherent and must be specifically conferred by statute;
therefore, once the Land Acquisition Officer had determined
compensation on 2nd/3rd September 2024, the same Land Acquisition
Officer could not have reviewed or altered his own determination on
the strength of the communication dated 10th January 2025. He further
submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply the respondents have themselves
admitted that it is only the Land Acquisition Officer who can determine
compensation. He then relied upon the respondents' affidavit to
contend that what was approved by the District Level Committee was a
valuation report, which, according to him, lends credence to the
petitioner's submission that on 9th June 2023 there was in fact no lawful
determination of compensation. He submitted that the Collector, by
communication dated 18th July 2025, again acted without jurisdiction in
directing the Land Acquisition Officer to ignore the meeting dated
4th October 2024. Referring to the Collector's affidavit which notes that
the Joint Measurement Survey was finalized on 6 th June 2022 and
further asserts that the Collector had already sanctioned compensation
on 9th June 2023, he submitted that even assuming for the sake of
argument, without admitting, that the purported award dated 29 th
September 2025 could be treated as legal and valid, there would then
have been no occasion whatsoever to issue a fresh notice under Section
19B(6) dated 7th August 2025 and thereafter pass an award on 29 th
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{43}
September 2025. He concluded by submitting that the record
unmistakably shows that the State Government, for reasons best known
to it, has sought to avoid giving effect to the determination of
compensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 2 nd/3rd
September 2024, which stood approved by the District Level
Committee, and he accordingly prayed that the petition be allowed.
23. The learned Advocate appearing in Writ Petition No. 5709 of
2025 has tendered written notes of arguments along with a compilation
of events and dates and has, in essence, contended that once the Land
Acquisition Officer has determined the amount of compensation in
exercise of powers under Section 19B(3) of the Maharashtra Highways
Act, the same cannot thereafter be modified by any authority. In
elaboration of this submission, it has been urged that the determination
made by the Land Acquisition Officer was strictly in accordance with the
statutory procedure prescribed under Section 19B, which included
issuance of notice under Section 19B(6), granting opportunity of
hearing to all persons interested, consideration of objections raised by
them, obtaining clarifications from the concerned technical and expert
departments, and thereafter applying independent mind to the facts of
the case, expert opinions and applicable statutory provisions. It is thus
submitted that the determination of compensation made by the Land
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{44}
Acquisition Officer by orders dated 2 nd/3rd September 2024 constitutes
the only lawful determination made after following the complete
statutory procedure. It is further pointed out that such determination
was made in respect of as many as 480 landowners, as reflected from
the forwarding letter dated 9th September 2024, and that the Land
Acquisition Officer also prepared the requisite PRAPATRA in accordance
with the said determination. The learned Advocate has further
submitted that under the scheme of the Act read with Government
Resolution dated 29th May 2018, once the Land Acquisition Officer
determines the compensation, the role of the District Level Committee is
limited to deciding whether an additional 25% amount is to be offered
to those landowners who are willing to part with their lands by consent,
whereas those who do not consent are required to be paid
compensation strictly in accordance with the determination made by the
Land Acquisition Officer, and that there exists no provision enabling the
Land Acquisition Officer to thereafter modify such determination.
24. The second principal contention raised in the written notes is that
the Hon'ble Chief Minister has no authority in law to issue any
directions in the matter of determination or payment of compensation.
In support of this contention, it is submitted that the power vested in
the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 19B(3) to determine
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{45}
compensation is quasi judicial in nature, particularly in view of Section
19D of the Act which confers upon the Land Acquisition Officer powers
akin to those of a Civil Court for purposes of the Act. It is therefore
contended that there is no provision in the statute conferring authority
upon any superior administrative officer or even the Hon'ble Chief
Minister to issue directions with respect to determination of
compensation, which, according to the learned Advocate, falls
exclusively within the domain of the Land Acquisition Officer. It is thus
submitted that the alleged oral directions of the Hon'ble Chief Minister
in a review or war room meeting, and the consequent communication
dated 10th January 2025 issued by the Collector directing the Land
Acquisition Officer to re-determine compensation in accordance with
such directions, are wholly illegal and dehors the provisions of the Act
and are therefore liable to be ignored for all legal purposes. It is further
submitted that since the entire subsequent process undertaken by the
respondent authorities after issuance of the communication dated 10 th
January 2025 is founded upon such alleged oral directions, the entire
process stands vitiated in law.
25. The learned Advocate has further contended that the authorities
had no jurisdiction to pass what has been described as a "second
award". In support of this submission, it is contended that once the
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{46}
Land Acquisition Officer had determined the amount of compensation
and the same was approved in the meeting of the District Level
Committee dated 4th October 2024, the authorities could not have
convened a second meeting for the purpose of modifying such
determination. It is further submitted that even assuming, without
conceding, that the District Level Committee in its meeting dated 4 th
October 2024 had not approved the determination made by the Land
Acquisition Officer by order dated 2nd/3rd September 2024, the only
option available to the authorities would have been to decline payment
of the additional 25% incentive amount and to pay compensation
strictly as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned
Advocate has further submitted that once the landowners had conveyed
their consent to the decision taken in the meeting dated 4 th October
2024, there could be no alteration in the compensation proposal
thereafter. According to him, under the Government Resolutions dated
12th May 2015 and 29th May 2018, once a decision is taken in the
meeting of the District Level Committee and the same is consented to by
the landowners, no subsequent change in the compensation amount is
permissible, particularly because the acquisition in such cases is by way
of agreement and any compensation amount not acceptable to the
landowners cannot be unilaterally imposed upon them.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{47}
26. The learned Advocate has also addressed the contention raised on
behalf of the Collector that the report submitted by the District
Superintendent Agricultural Officer was vague and therefore not
acceptable and that for this reason the proceedings of the meeting dated
4th October 2024 were not signed by certain members. It is submitted
that no such discussion regarding alleged vagueness of the report of the
District Superintendent Agricultural Officer is reflected in the
proceedings of the meeting dated 4th October 2024. It is further
contended that, in any event, the report of the Agricultural Officer was
not directly under consideration before the Committee; rather, what
was placed before the Committee was the proposal submitted by the
Land Acquisition Officer who had determined compensation by
following the statutory procedure under Section 19B(3), and it was that
proposal which was considered by the Committee. On the basis of these
submissions, the learned Advocate has prayed that the petitions be
allowed.
27. In Writ Petition No. 13740 of 2025, the petitioner has tendered
written submissions which, as noted, substantially reiterate the line of
argument canvassed by the other petitioners and their learned senior
counsel.
28. On behalf of the Maharashtra State Road Development
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{48}
Corporation, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vijay Patil opposed the
petitions and submitted that the controversy sought to be raised
regarding the role and powers of the District Level Committee under the
Government Resolution dated 12th May 2015 and the Government
Order dated 29th May 2018 is no longer res integra, having been
squarely considered and concluded by a Division Bench of this Court in
Vidhyadhar Gajanan More v. State of Maharashtrai, Mh.L.J. 2025 (4)
470. Placing reliance particularly on paragraphs 40 to 44 of the said
judgment, he submitted that the Division Bench has categorically held
that there is no legal impediment to the Land Acquisition Officer
proceeding to make determination of compensation in the manner
contemplated by the statute after the State has made efforts to arrive at
an agreement with the landholders and such efforts have failed. He
further submitted that in the said decision the Division Bench
specifically framed and answered the issue whether the
award/determination made by the Land Acquisition Officer could be set
aside in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 on grounds such as the Land
Acquisition Officer having taken aid of Government Resolutions, relied
upon reports of the District Level Committee, ignored the provisions of
Schedules I and II of the 2013 Act, applied an incorrect multiplier, or
adopted an incorrect belting system, when the statute itself provides a
remedy under Section 19B(8) by way of recourse to arbitration if either
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{49}
party is dissatisfied with the compensation determined. Inviting
attention to paragraphs 61 to 63 of the said judgment, he submitted
that the Division Bench has held that such grievances essentially pertain
to dissatisfaction with compensation and can be agitated before the
arbitrator; that Section 19B(10) exhaustively enumerates the principles
relevant to determination of compensation and applies equally to the
Land Acquisition Officer and the arbitrator; that extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not to be invoked for such
purposes; and that even allegations that the Land Acquisition Officer
acted under dictation of the District Level Committee or was guided by
Government Resolutions do not, by themselves, furnish a ground to set
aside the award, at the highest constituting contentions to be urged
before the arbitrator, particularly when the statute provides a specific
remedy and the Court would otherwise be required to enter upon
disputed questions of fact.
29. On the strength of the aforesaid legal position, Mr. Patil
submitted that the District Level Committee performs, at best, an
assisting and recommendatory role and that the statutory obligation of
determining compensation rests with the Land Acquisition Officer, who
may take guidance from recommendations of the District Level
Committee in the backdrop of Section 19B(3) of the Maharashtra
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{50}
Highways Act, 1955; however, it remains for the Land Acquisition
Officer to proceed in accordance with law and to pass the appropriate
award/determination, whether on consent under Section 19B(2) or
otherwise under Section 19B(3). He then submitted that the petitioners'
heavy reliance on the order dated 2 nd September 2024, projected as a
quasi-judicial determination, is misconceived, as according to him the
said order merely disposes of objections of sixteen landowners and does
not amount to determination of compensation so as to constitute a
statutory offer capable of enforcement. On the same reasoning, he
submitted that the alleged proceedings of the District Level Committee
meeting dated 4th October 2024 do not create any enforceable right in
favour of the petitioners, the minutes being incomplete and, in any
event, never having been communicated as an operative decision;
rather, according to him, they remained at the level of internal notings
and were procured by the petitioners under the Right to Information
Act, 2005. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority v. Vishnu
Dev Cooperative Housing Society, AIR 2018 SC 3656, Shanti Sports
Club v. Union of India, 2010 AIR SC 433, Union of India v. Kartik
Chandra Mandal, (2010 AIR SC 3455) and State of Bihar v. Tripalu
Shankar 1987 AIR SC 1554, to contend that internal file notings or
incomplete minutes do not confer legally enforceable rights and that the
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{51}
petitioners cannot, on such basis, seek a writ of implementation.
30. Mr. Patil further submitted that, in pith and substance, the
petitioners' grievance is directed against the valuation of their acquired
lands and the things situated thereon, and such grievance is required to
be redressed in accordance with the mechanism prescribed in Section
19B(8), (9) and (10) of the Act by approaching the arbitrator. In
support, he placed reliance on orders passed by this Court in Real
Ventures Investment LLP v. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.
1810 of 2024 decided on 21st August 2024 and Sopan Venu Gaikwad v.
State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 15001 of 2023 decided on 1st
January 2024. He also disputed the submission advanced on behalf of
the petitioners that the meeting dated 9th June 2023 was vitiated for
want of notice or hearing to the landowners, contending that the law
does not contemplate such a requirement at the stage of the District
Level Committee and that compliance of Section 19B(6) and (7) was, in
any case, effected in the present acquisition proceedings. He likewise
refuted the contention that the award dated 29th September 2025
constitutes a "second award" impermissible in law, submitting that the
award dated 29th September 2025 is, according to him, the only award
in respect of the lands concerned, and that no earlier award under
Section 19B(3) had been passed. He further submitted that the
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{52}
argument advanced by the petitioners that the State/MSRDC ought to
have approached the arbitrator against the order dated 2nd September
2024 or the alleged proceedings dated 4th October 2024 is unsustainable
because arbitration under Section 19B(8) arises only after a
determination of compensation under Section 19B(3), and neither the
order dated 2nd September 2024 nor the proceedings dated 4 th October
2024 can, according to him, be treated as such determination.
31. Mr. Patil also addressed the meeting of the District Level
Committee dated 4th August 2025, submitting that the said meeting
was convened to recommend changes in the classification of certain
lands from jirayat to seasonal bagayat and thereby to recommend
higher valuation, which was, in effect, more beneficial to landowners,
and therefore the grievance raised regarding such meeting is without
merit. Referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Respondent
No. 5, he submitted that the challenge to the Collector's communication
dated 10th January 2025 is misconceived, as no consent award or
compulsory award had been passed as on that date and, therefore, no
cause of action had accrued to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court; he submitted that no fundamental or legal right of the
petitioners stood violated. He further submitted that MSRDC, being the
Highway Authority and acquiring body under the Act, had initially not
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{53}
been impleaded by the petitioners, and that the petition itself was thus
defective at inception. He also asserted that it was incorrect to contend
that by order dated 2nd September 2024 the Land Acquisition Officer
quantified and finally determined compensation payable to the
petitioners.
32. On the aspect of the communication dated 10 th January 2025, Mr.
Patil submitted that the Office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, in a review
meeting concerning the project, had emphasized that awards for the
project should be passed in accordance with law on the basis of correct
valuation reports and that officials involved in preparation of false or
fabricated valuation reports should face departmental enquiry. He
submitted that the Collector's communication dated 10th January 2025,
issued pursuant to such directions, was purely administrative in nature
and cannot be construed as overruling any quasi-judicial order. He then
sought to justify the genesis of the revised valuation by submitting that
after the final notification and Joint Measurement exercise, valuation
reports of fruit trees dated 10th April 2023 and 17th April 2023 were
submitted, but were found to be false or not reflective of the actual field
position in respect of certain lands; consequently, the valuation was
directed to be re-verified through a different process and the
Agricultural Department submitted a revised report dated 23rd May
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{54}
2023 indicating saplings where earlier reports had indicated mature
trees. According to him, this revised report was considered by the
District Level Committee and unanimously approved in the meeting
dated 9th June 2023. He further submitted that after issuance of the
preliminary notification under Section 15(2) on 26 th November 2021
and completion of joint measurement, the declaration under Section 18
was published on 3rd November 2022 and thereafter valuation reports
were submitted in April 2023; however, on noticing serious
irregularities regarding number and age of trees, the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Selu referred the reports for re-verification and reported to the
Collector, whereupon a committee under the chairmanship of the
Deputy Collector was appointed and inspection was conducted,
followed by the direction to the Agricultural Department to submit a
corrected valuation report. He submitted that the revised report dated
23rd May 2023 was thereafter acted upon; a proposal was submitted by
the competent authority to the District Level Committee; and the same
was approved in its meeting dated 9th June 2023. He contended that the
District Level Committee does not itself determine compensation and,
therefore, there was no requirement to issue notice to landowners in
relation to the revised valuation report at that stage; thereafter, notices
under Section 19B(6) and (7) were issued depicting compensation
details approved and the landowners lodged their claims disputing
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{55}
compensation, particularly in relation to fruit trees.
33. He further submitted that upon transfer of the earlier Land
Acquisition Officer, the successor officer, instead of proceeding to pass
the award on the basis of rates approved on 9 th June 2023, entered into
correspondence and proceeded to accept objections of agriculturists by
communication dated 2nd September 2024 to consider the earlier
valuation reports of 10th April 2023 and 17th April 2023, and then
submitted a fresh proposal dated 9th September 2024 to the District
Level Committee, which, according to him, was unnecessary,
unwarranted and contrary to law because the District Level Committee
proceedings had already been finalized on 9th June 2023. In that
context, he submitted that the subsequent so-called proceedings of the
District Level Committee dated 4th October 2024 had no legal effect as
the minutes were not approved or signed by the Chairman, namely the
Collector, and that the representative of MSRDC was also not present
and had not signed; hence, according to him, those proceedings could
not confer any enforceable right. He accordingly submitted that the
petitioners' letter dated 7th January 2025 claiming consent to such
proceedings was illogical and incapable of creating rights, since the
meeting of 4th October 2024 did not culminate into a final decision.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{56}
34. Mr. Patil also sought to demonstrate the magnitude of alleged
discrepancy in valuation. He submitted that for the remaining
acquisition of about 204.34 hectares said to contain orchards, the first
valuation reports dated 10th April 2023 and 17 th April 2023 reflected
valuation of fruit trees to the tune of approximately Rs.416.27 crores,
which, according to him, was exorbitant and wholly inconsistent with
ground realities. The revised report dated 23 rd May 2023, on the other
hand, reflected valuation of about Rs.9.17 crores, revealing, according
to him, a startling difference of about Rs.407.10 crores, which
necessitated administrative intervention. He submitted that in view of
such perceived misconduct, the then Collector recommended
departmental enquiry against erring agricultural officials by proposal
dated 16th June 2023 to the Principal Secretary, Agriculture
Department, Mumbai, and that in contemplation of such enquiry the
concerned officials were suspended. He further submitted that despite
the earlier reports having been discarded and the revised report having
been accepted on 9th June 2023, the in-charge District Agricultural
Officer by communication dated 30th August 2024 surprisingly
suggested acceptance of the earlier valuation reports, which, according
to him, itself reflected the state of affairs in the department.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{57}
35. On the basis of the aforesaid, Mr. Patil contended that the
petitioners have failed to demonstrate any enforceable legal right or any
corresponding statutory obligation on the respondents capable of being
enforced in writ jurisdiction. According to him, the petition proceeds on
assumptions and attempts to conflate the concepts of a consent
acquisition and compulsory acquisition, whereas a consent award can
arise only upon consensus between the competent authority, the
acquiring body and the landowners; the petitioners cannot insist upon a
consent award on their own terms. If the landowners are dissatisfied
with compensation determined in a compulsory process, their remedy
lies in the statutory framework, including recourse to arbitration, and
not in seeking implementation of incomplete minutes or challenging an
administrative communication. He therefore submitted that in the facts
and circumstances, the challenge to the Collector's letter dated 10th
January 2025, being a mere administrative direction intended to adhere
to the compensation approved in the District Level Committee meeting
dated 9th June 2023, is misconceived; that the petition raises no
justiciable grievance; and that the writ petitions deserve dismissal,
reiterating his reliance on the authorities in Pimpri Chinchwad New
Township Development Authority (supra), Shanti Sports Club (supra),
Kartik Chandra Mandal (supra) and Tripalu Shankar (supra).
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{58}
36. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State, while
opposing the petitions, drew our attention to the chronology of events
culminating in the passing of the award and, with reference to the
relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955, submitted
that the respondent authorities are empowered to acquire land under
Section 15 of the said Act and that the procedure governing such
acquisition is statutorily prescribed in Sections 16 to 19C. After
adverting to the notifications and documents placed on record, he
submitted that there is no dispute that the acquisition is for a public
purpose and that, significantly, there is no challenge to the acquisition
as such. According to the learned Advocate General, the controversy, if
at all, pertains to the determination of compensation and the procedure
followed in that regard. He submitted that Section 19B lays down a
complete mechanism for determination of compensation by the Land
Acquisition Officer, and that before proceeding to determine the
compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to issue public
notice and call upon persons interested to submit their claims and
appear, as contemplated under Section 19B(6) and (7). He submitted
that the statutory notice under Section 19B(6) and (7), followed by
consideration of claims and hearing, results in the Land Acquisition
Officer determining the valuation of the acquired land and making an
offer thereof to the landowners, who may accept the same. He
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{59}
submitted that if the offer so made is accepted by the landowners, the
acquisition may proceed by consent and a consent award can be made
in terms of Section 19B(2). Conversely, where the landowners do not
consent to the amount offered, the Land Acquisition Officer proceeds to
determine the compensation and pass a compulsory award under
Section 19B(3). He further submitted that while determining the
valuation, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to take into
consideration the statutory factors enumerated under Section 19B(10)
of the Act.
37. The learned Advocate General then submitted that the District
Level Committee constituted by the State Government under the
Government Resolution dated 12th May 2015, and made applicable to
highway acquisitions by the Government Order dated 29 th May 2018, is
only a mechanism intended to assist the Land Acquisition Officer in the
administrative process and does not supplant the statutory role of the
Land Acquisition Officer. He submitted that the minutes of the District
Level Committee are, at best, recommendatory and intended for such
assistance and that, in view of the scheme of Section 19B(3), the Land
Acquisition Officer is not bound to accept the recommendations of the
District Level Committee. In any case, he submitted, once the District
Level Committee's recommendations are placed before the Land
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{60}
Acquisition Officer, what is contemplated in law is that an offer must be
duly made to the landowners for obtaining their consent so that, if
accepted, an award under Section 19B(2) could follow. He emphasized
that the minutes of the District Level Committee, by themselves, do not
create any actionable right or enforceable claim in favour of anyone,
and cannot be treated as a statutory offer capable of acceptance so as to
compel making of a consent award.
38. With respect to the communication dated 2 nd September 2024
relied upon by the petitioners, the learned Advocate General submitted
that the said communication represents nothing more than disposal of
objections raised by landowners pursuant to the notices issued under
Section 19B(6) and (7). He submitted that for acquisition by consent
under Section 19B(2), the statute contemplates a clear offer by the
competent authority and an unambiguous acceptance resulting in an
agreement; only upon such agreement can a consent award be made.
He therefore submitted that the petitioners' contention that the
communication dated 2nd September 2024 is a quasi-judicial order
which must be enforced is misconceived. According to him, the
communication is in the nature of an administrative order and, in
substance, rejects the objections raised by the petitioners; the legal
consequence of such rejection, he submitted, would ordinarily be that
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{61}
the process moves towards a compulsory award under Section 19B(3).
He contended that the said communication cannot, by any stretch, be
construed as an offer of a particular valuation capable of acceptance by
the petitioners. He further pointed out that the petitioners themselves
did not, on the basis of the communication dated 2 nd September 2024,
assert acceptance of any offer or demand issuance of a consent award;
rather, their case of alleged offer and acceptance is sought to be
constructed only with reference to the District Level Committee meeting
dated 4th October 2024, which, according to him, undermines their
attempt to found enforceable rights on the communication dated 2 nd
September 2024.
39. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the
petitioners' case, in essence, is that upon obtaining, through the Right to
Information Act, what they describe as minutes of the District Level
Committee meeting dated 4th October 2024, which were never
communicated to them as an operative decision, the petitioners then
addressed a letter dated 7th January (as stated by the petitioners)
purporting to accept the valuation allegedly discussed by the District
Level Committee in the meeting of 4 th October 2024. On that basis, the
petitioners contend that there was an offer and acceptance resulting in
a binding agreement and consequently a consent award under Section
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{62}
19B(2) is required to be made. The learned Advocate General submitted
that such a submission cannot be sustained either on the scheme of the
Maharashtra Highways Act or even on elementary principles governing
formation of contract. He submitted that, even under general contract
law, an agreement must be founded on a clear and lawful offer and an
unconditional acceptance in the manner contemplated by law, and that
a unilateral letter by a landowner purporting to "accept" an internal or
incomplete set of minutes not communicated as an offer cannot be
elevated to a binding agreement, much less a statutory agreement
warranting a consent award under Section 19B(2).
40. Lastly, the learned Advocate General submitted that the
petitioners' primary grievance is essentially about valuation and
adequacy of compensation and that such grievance is specifically
redressable only through the statutory remedy under Section 19B(8),
read with sub-sections (9) and (10), by seeking determination of
compensation by the arbitrator appointed by the State Government. He
submitted that such disputes cannot be converted into writ issues and
adjudicated in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decisions in Real
Ventures Investment LLP v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and Sopan
Venu Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and, on the basis of the
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{63}
aforesaid, prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
41. From the standpoint of constitutional and statutory adjudication,
the petitions, when examined holistically, disclose a dispute that is
essentially rooted in compensation methodology, administrative process
sequencing, and competing interpretations of the role of the District
Level Committee vis-Ã -vis the statutory authority of the Land
Acquisition Officer under Section 19B of the Maharashtra Highways Act,
rather than any challenge to the legality of the acquisition itself. The
lands of the petitioners were notified for acquisition for a major public
infrastructure project- the Jalna-Nanded Super Expressway forming
part of the Samruddhi corridor, and vesting has already occurred
pursuant to statutory notifications. The litigation therefore arises in the
post-vesting phase and is directed primarily against the communication
dated 10th January 2025 and the subsequent award dated 29 th
September 2025.
42. We have considered the arguments of both the parties and have
also perused the documents placed on record pertaining to the process
of acquisition till passing of impugned award. In order to appreciate the
issues involved, firstly, we place on record the legal position that
negotiates the subject acquisition. The statutory framework
demonstrates that once the notification and vesting stages are crossed,
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{64}
the legislative intent shifts to ensuring structured determination of
compensation through a specialized statutory mechanism. The
Government Orders of 2015 and 2018, when read together, do not
dilute the statutory authority of the Land Acquisition Officer but only
create an administrative architecture for facilitation of agreement-based
acquisition and grant of an additional 25% incentive in cases of consent
acquisition. The District Level Committee, though important in policy
implementation, operates within a Government Resolution domain and
not as a statutory adjudicatory authority under the Act. Thus, any
attempt to elevate its internal decisions or minutes to the level of
enforceable statutory determinations would run contrary to the
statutory scheme.
43. The factual narrative itself reveals that the compensation
determination process was not static but evolved through multiple
valuation inputs, including Joint Measurement Survey based valuation
and subsequent valuation exercises. The petitioners' principal grievance
that a second valuation report was prepared and relied upon without
hearing may at best demonstrate procedural irregularity at an
intermediate stage, but not a jurisdictional nullity. The record shows
that thereafter hearings were conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer
and objections were considered, thereby substantially curing any earlier
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{65}
procedural lapse. In administrative law, particularly in acquisition
matters involving large infrastructure projects, courts have consistently
distinguished between curable procedural irregularities and jurisdiction-
destroying illegality. The present case, on the material placed, falls in
the former category.
44. The argument of the petitioners that the determination dated
6th September 2024 attained irrevocable finality upon alleged
acceptance by the District Level Committee on 4th October 2024 is not
sustainable in law. Firstly, the statute does not contemplate finality
attaching to any step unless it culminates in a statutory
determination/award recognizable under Section 19B. Secondly,
internal administrative acceptance or committee level approval cannot
create vested enforceable rights against the State, particularly where the
process of final award preparation and statutory formalization is still
underway. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to
compel the State to act contrary to statute or to freeze a statutory
determination process at a non-statutory stage.
45. The Collector's communication dated 10th January 2025, even if it
referred to policy level review meetings, cannot ipso facto be read as
unlawful interference with quasi-judicial powers unless it is shown that
the Land Acquisition Officer acted mechanically without independent
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{66}
application of mind. The petition material does not conclusively
establish such abdication of statutory duty. In large public acquisition
projects, inter-departmental coordination, policy review meetings, and
administrative supervision are not per se illegal so long as the statutory
authority ultimately exercises independent decision-making. The mere
existence of higher level policy direction does not vitiate the decision
unless it demonstrably substitutes statutory satisfaction with executive
command, which is not decisively established here.
46. Further, the submission that the Maharashtra Highways Act does
not contemplate any second determination or second award is an over-
simplified reading of the statute. Where the process has not culminated
in a legally finalized determination or where earlier steps are found
administratively incomplete or inconsistent with policy or statutory
requirements, the authority is not rendered functus officio. Particularly
in special acquisition statutes distinct from the classical Land
Acquisition Act structure, compensation determination is an integrated
administrative-statutory exercise culminating only upon final statutory
expression. Thus, subsequent determination or re-working of
compensation prior to final crystallization cannot automatically be
labelled as review or second award in the prohibited sense.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{67}
47. Equally significant is the availability of a complete statutory
remedial mechanism. Section 19B itself provides for arbitration as the
primary dispute resolution forum for compensation disputes. The
Supreme Court and High Courts have repeatedly held that where the
dispute substantially concerns adequacy, methodology, or components
of compensation, writ jurisdiction should be exercised with restraint
and parties should be relegated to statutory forums unless there is
patent lack of jurisdiction, fraud, or violation of fundamental procedural
safeguards. In the present case, the challenge substantially attacks
valuation choice, reliance on one report versus another, and the timing
of determination and all these issues squarely falling within arbitral
scrutiny rather than constitutional adjudication.
48. From the perspective of judicial review under Article 226, the
court is not required to sit as an appellate authority over compensation
calculation or internal administrative decision-making sequences. The
court's concern is limited to legality, jurisdiction, and procedural
fairness. On the available record, the acquisition is lawful, vesting is
complete, compensation determination process was undertaken through
statutory machinery, hearings were eventually afforded, and a final
award has been passed. At best, the petitioners have demonstrated
disagreement with the compensation methodology and the decision to
rely on a particular valuation framework. Such grievance is remediable
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{68}
under the statutory arbitration framework and does not justify exercise
of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
49. The balance of public interest also weighs significantly. The
acquisition relates to a major expressway project forming part of a
larger state infrastructure corridor. Courts have consistently held that
once acquisition has substantially progressed and public projects are
underway, interference at compensation stage must be minimal unless
illegality is manifest and irreparable. Granting relief on the grounds
urged would effectively convert writ jurisdiction into a supervisory
forum over each stage of compensation administration, which is neither
contemplated by the statute nor supported by settled constitutional
jurisprudence.
50. Viewed cumulatively, therefore, the petitions do not disclose
grounds warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. The petitioners
have an efficacious alternate remedy under the statute; there is no
jurisdictional error of a magnitude warranting constitutional
interference is demonstrated and the administrative actions complained
of do not, on the record, rise to the level of illegality that would vitiate
the final award. The proper course is to dismiss the petitions while
preserving liberty of the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies
available in law.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{69}
51. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the challenge raised in the present petitions is essentially
directed against the process and outcome of determination of
compensation and the sequence of administrative and statutory steps
leading to the passing of the final award. The material placed on record
does not demonstrate any jurisdictional infirmity, patent illegality, or
violation of principles of natural justice of such magnitude as would
warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The acquisition proceedings have attained finality
insofar as vesting of lands is concerned, and the statutory mechanism
for determination of compensation has achieved finality under the
governing statute. We find no reason to enter in the dispute of
nomenclature used on the document dated 29 th September 2026. As to
whether it is an award or determination of compensation? Document
itself admittedly shows determination of compensation to be paid to the
land owners which in itself is self explanatory document and nothing
changes in favour of petitioners if the document is termed as award.
52. The reliance placed by the petitioners on internal administrative
decisions, committee level deliberations, or earlier stages of the
decision-making process cannot, in law, create an enforceable right
capable of being enforced in writ jurisdiction, particularly when the
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{70}
statutory process has culminated in a formal determination. Equally, the
plea founded on alleged consent or estoppel cannot override the
statutory scheme governing acquisition and compensation. The Court is
also mindful that the statute itself provides a complete and efficacious
remedial framework for adjudication of disputes relating to
compensation, and it would be inappropriate for this Court to convert
writ jurisdiction into an appellate forum over valuation or compensation
determination.
53. It is well settled that judicial review in acquisition matters,
particularly at the stage of compensation determination, is limited to
examination of legality, jurisdiction and procedural fairness, and does
not extend to re-appreciation of technical valuation material or
substitution of the Court's view for that of the statutory authority. On
the facts of the present case, the grievance of the petitioners, at its
highest, relates to the basis of methodology of compensation
determination, which is a matter falling squarely within the statutory
dispute resolution mechanism available under the Act.
54. This Court is also required to balance individual grievances with
larger public interest. The acquisition in question relates to a major
public infrastructure project of considerable public importance.
Interference at this stage, in absence of clear illegality, would run
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{71}
contrary to the settled principles governing judicial restraint in matters
of public acquisition where statutory processes have substantially
progressed.
55. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no merit in the
petitions. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) All the above Writ Petitions, being devoid of merit, are
dismissed.
(ii) The challenge to the communication dated 10 th January 2025
and the award dated 29th September 2025 impugned in all the
petitons fails and stand rejected.
(iii) It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of
the quantum of compensation, methodology of determination
of compensation and it shall be open to the petitioners to
avail such statutory remedies as may be available to them
under the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Highways
Act, 1955, including remedy of arbitration, if so advised and
in accordance with law.
(iv) All interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
(v) Rule is discharged.
(vi) There shall be no order as to costs.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{72}
LATER ON:
56. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned advocate Mr.
Kachare appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.13024 of
22025 prays that the interim relief which was operating in favour of the
petitioners since 15.10.2025, should be continued for a period of eight
(8) weeks from today so as to enable the petitioners to approach the
Hon’ble Supreme Court for challenging the judgment and order passed
by this Court today. Mr. Kale, learned advocate for the petitioners in
Writ Petition No. 13018 of 2025 and connected petitions, submits that
the petitioners apprehend that the authorities may take possession of
their lands without following the due procedure of law as contemplated
under Section 19P of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955. It is
contended that the authorities may hastily take possession without
payment of compensation, and here he has prayed for directions to the
authorities to follow the due process of law.
57. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective
sets of petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for
the State.
58. Insofar as the request made by learned Advocate Mr. Kachare,
appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.13024 of 2025, for
continuation of the interim relief is concerned, we have carefully
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{73}
perused the interim order dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Court, which
reads thus:
“. Learned Advocate for petitioner states that now the Award
has been passed and possession of lands would be taken
which is against the agreement that was entered into.
Learned Advocate for respondent No.3 disputes that there
was an agreement. But he states that the Award has been
drawn and further proceedings would be taken up.
2 It appears that on 24.03.2025 this Court has specifically
observed that there is no reason to stay the operation of
impugned communication dated 10.01.2025, but prior to
that taking into consideration the contention by petitioner
that if there is already an agreement any subsequent
communication like impugned order dated 10.01.2025 would
not matter. The terms of the contract cannot be altered
unilaterally so as to adversely affect the rights of petitioner
based on the agreement allegedly entered.
3 The dispute mainly appears is in respect of amount of
compensation, because there appears to be no resistance as
such for the acquisition. Every holder of the land is definitely
entitled to get fair compensation. But taking into
consideration the fact that now the Award is passed and the
further proceedings appears to have not been started, we
direct that no further proceedings be taken up till
11.11.2025.
4 Place the matters for further consideration at 3.30 p.m. on
11.11.2025.”
59. By the said order, the respondent authorities were directed not
to proceed further towards taking physical possession of the acquired
land from the petitioners while the challenge to the award was under
consideration. The interim protection was thus limited in scope and was
granted at a stage when the validity of the award and the issues
connected therewith were sub judice before this Court.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{74}
60. At the outset, we make it clear that none of the petitions before
us have challenged the legality or validity of the acquisition proceedings
initiated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955.
What has been challenged is only the quantum of compensation and the
methodology adopted for its determination. It is an admitted position
that the acquisition proceedings, including the vesting of the acquired
lands, have attained finality and now what is left is the statutory
obligation of payment of compensation in accordance with law.
61. The interim order dated 15.10.2025 restrained the respondents
from taking physical possession of the acquired lands while the
challenge to the award was pending before this Court on the ground of
the methodology adopted by the respondent authorities in determining
the amount of compensation. In such circumstances, continuation of the
interim relief would effectively stall the concluded acquisition
undertaken for a public project of substantial importance, which has
already been delayed since the date of notification for acquisition. On
the contrary, permitting the respondents to proceed further would not
prejudice the petitioners’ statutory remedies in respect of compensation
or their right to avail of further legal remedies, including approaching
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On the other hand, any further delay would
result in escalation of project costs and continued accrual of statutory
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{75}
interest on compensation amounts running into crores, thereby
burdening the public exchequer.
62. As regards the apprehension expressed by learned Advocate Mr.
Kale, appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.13027 of 2025
and the companion matters is concerned, Section 19P of the
Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 contemplates that possession of the
acquired land must be taken strictly in accordance with the statutory
scheme, which necessarily requires compliance with the provisions
relating to payment of compensation to the landowners or persons
interested.
63. Considering that compensation is required to be disbursed to
numerous landowners and that the process itself would take time, the
petitioners would have adequate opportunity to pursue appropriate
remedies in accordance with law. Even otherwise, merely because
physical possession of the acquired lands is taken over by the
respondent authorities, it would not have any bearing on the issues and
disputes raised by the petitioners in respect of the quantum of
compensation and the methodology adopted by the respondent
authorities while determining the compensation.
3703-25-WP (+gr).odt
{76}
64. In view of the above, the request for continuation of the interim
relief stands rejected. However, it is clarified that the respondent
authorities shall strictly comply with the provisions of the Maharashtra
Highways Act, 1955 and the applicable Rules while proceeding to take
physical possession of the acquired lands.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane
