Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE
Sha Vijay Anandrao Sawant, Smt. Mangal Madhukar Sawant, (Since deceased through his legal representative) – Appellant
Versus
Baramati Nagar Parishad, Baramati, Pune, through its Chief Officer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANISH PITALE, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been pending in this Court since the year 2002. The record shows that it was directed to be taken up for final hearing, but it could not be finally heard despite having remained part-heard on a few occasions. The respondents filed their reply affidavits to oppose this petition and considering that this petition has been pending in this Court for the past 23 years, by an order dated 12.11.2025, it was directed to be listed for final hearing today.
3. The original petitioner is now represented by his legal representatives, as he expired during the pendency of this writ petition. The principal grievance of the petitioner was that a piece of land belonging to him and his predecessor was utilized by Respondent No.1-Municipal Council for the construction of road and despite being deprived of the piece of land, no steps were taken for adequately compensating the petitioner.
4. Before appreciating the rival submissions, a reference to the chronology of the events would be necessary. The documents on record show that on 11.06.1979,
The right to property under Article 300A mandates just compensation for land utilized by authorities, overriding regulations allowing nominal payment, ensuring constitutional protections are upheld.
(1) Article 300A though not a fundamental right but nevertheless it has status of being a constitutional or a statutory right.(2) Acquisition of land – Non-payment of compensation would be arbitrary ....
Forcible dispossession of property without due process violates constitutional rights; delay and laches are not applicable in cases of continuing cause of action.
Suppression of prior agreement waiving compensation for retained land in acquisition bargain constitutes unclean hands, barring writ relief for return or enhanced compensation; long-term leases for t....
Landowners have a constitutional right to compensation for land utilized for public projects, and claims cannot be dismissed based on implied consent or delay in seeking redress.
The duty to compensate upon land acquisition is a constitutional safeguard, ensuring no individual is deprived of property without legal due process and fair compensation, embodied in Article 300A.
Landowners are entitled to due process and compensation for property utilized by the State without formal acquisition, as under Article 300A of the Constitution.
The right to property under Article 300-A mandates compensation for land acquisition, and the State cannot deprive landowners of their property without due process and compensation.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
