SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 266

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. SONAK, JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Tushar Laxman Bhakare @ Chawhan - Petitioner 
Versus
The Collector, through PLAQ, Pune - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3502 of 2022
Decided On : 07-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Gaurav Potnis i/b. Ms. Pallavi Potnis for Petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Potnis i/b. Ms. Pallavi Potnis for Petitioner.
Mr. K. S. Thorat, ‘B’ Panel Counsel a/w Ms. S. R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. P. B. Gujar a/w Mr. Siddarth Ambegaonkar for Respondent No.3-NHAI.

The State must follow legal procedures for land acquisition and cannot evade compensation obligations based on delay or laches.

Headnote:

(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3(1), 3A, and 3H(1) - Acquisition of land - Petitioner contended that possession of 10600 sq.mtrs was taken without proper acquisition or compensation, while only 2250 sq.mtrs was awarded - Authorities admitted possession of additional land but failed to complete acquisition process - Court found no disputed facts and directed compensation for the additional land. (Paras 5, 10, 26, 36)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasized the need for the State to follow legal procedures in land acquisition and not evade compensation obligations based on delay or laches. (Paras 31, 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s land was partially acquired for highway expansion, but additional land was taken without compensation. The petitioner provided evidence of the additional land's acquisition and sought compensation.

Findings of Court:
The NHAI was directed to deposit Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for the additional land and complete the acquisition process within six months.

Issues: The main issues included whether the additional land was acquired legally and the obligation of the State to compensate the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the State must adhere to legal protocols in land acquisition and cannot deny compensation based on procedural delays.

Result: Rule made absolute, directing compensation and acquisition process to commence.

JUDGMENT :

(M.S. Sonak) :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The respondent is the owner of the property admeasuring 3 Ha-39 Ares of land from Gat No.402 situated in Village Kalewadi, Tal. Indapur, District Pune.

4. By an award dated 7 December 2011, issued by the competent authority, the land measuring 2250 sq.mtrs belonging to the petitioner from Gat No. 402 was acquired. However, the petitioner asserts that possession of 10600 sq.mtrs of land was taken, although the award dated 7 December 2011 only referred to the 2250 sq.mtrs area.

5. On 15 June 2012, the Highway Authority issued a notification on page 61 of the paper book under Section 3(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, regarding its additional area of 8350 sq.mtrs. However, such notification was not pursued. As a result, neither has any award been made for this additional area, nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioner for this extra area.

6. Typically, given the summary nature of our jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, we would have been reluctant to go into such issues. But, here, we are satisfied that there are no disputed questions of fact. The Authorities have admitted to possessing the additional lands. Even proposals were initiated to acquire this extra land. But because such proposals are not being taken to their logical conclusion the Petitioner was forced to file this petition.

7. The petitioner has placed on record the report from the land survey department dated 20 July 2015, which certifies that the total area of 10600 sq.mtrs. has been acquired from Gat No.402 and even road has been built over the said land. This document is at pages 62 and 63 of the paper book.

8. The petitioner has also placed on record a communication dated 5 March 2013 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, which is the cover letter of the panchnama that certifies the above position. This document refers to Mr. Mishra's presence on behalf of the Highway Authority, but it notes that Mr. Mishra declined to sign the panchnama. This document is on page 72 of the paper book.

9. The petitioner has also placed on record the communication dated 27 October 2016 addressed by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to the Special Land Acquisition Officer-17, Pune. This communication also refers to Gat No.402 at Village Kalewadi, Tal. Indapur, District Pune, states, in no uncertain terms, that the total area affected due to National Highway-9 is 10600 sq.mtrs. This communication further states that out of this area, 2250 sq.mtrs. is already acquired, and the balance area to be acquired is 8350 sq.mtrs. This document is on pages 86 and 87 of the paper book.

10. The petitioner has also placed on record the letter dated 3 March 2017 addressed by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) No.17, Pune to the Project Director of National Highway Authority requiring the NHAI to issue necessary notification regarding the acquisition of additional land from Gat No.402. Based on all the above documents, the petitioner contends that this additional land of 8350 sq.mtrs, of which, the possession is already taken over without the authority of law and without paying any compensation to the petitioner, must be forthwith compensated upon, if necessary, by proceeding to at least now acquire the same.

11. Ms. Aarti Bhosale, Collector (Land Acquisition) No.17, Pune, has filed an affidavit for Respondents Nos.1 and 2. This affidavit shows that at least the State Government has not raised any serious dispute regarding the case set out by the petitioner. The state government has only recorded that it was following up on the matter with the NHAI and has referred to the correspondence with the NHAI on this subject.

12. Paragraph 8 of Ms. Aarti’s affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is important, and the same is transcribed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top