Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
Bhalchandra Chintaman Deo and Others – Appellants
Versus
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Pune and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6353 of 2012
Decided On : 09-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges land diversion to private parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. acquisition chronology for township development upheld. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. entitled to return or 2013 act compensation. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. suppression, agreement bar compensation claim. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 5. leases fulfill original township public purpose. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 6. suppressed prior no-compensation agreement. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 7. unclean hands deny court relief. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 8. suppression overrides delay in property claim. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 9. section 24(2) proviso inapplicable here. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83) |
| 10. third-party rights prevent land return. (Para 84 , 85 , 86 , 87) |
| 11. writ petition dismissed without relief. (Para 88 , 89) |
JUDGMENT :
MANISH PITALE, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioners initially raised their claim for release of 25.39 acres of land belonging to them and acquired by the State, located in Survey No.210 in Village Wakad, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune, on the ground that while it was acquired for public purpose, it was subsequently being given to private parties. The petitioners also sought quashing of an advertisement notice issued in a newspaper by the original respondent No. 2-Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as PCNTDA), whereby parts of the said land were put up for sale for residential, commercial and/or industrial purpose by granting leases of 99 years. The thrust of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners was that giving away land to private parties, after acquiring the same ostensibly for public purpose, was in the teeth of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another vs. G. Jayarama Reddy and others , (2011) 10 SCC 608.
2. After the respondents filed their reply affidavits, the petitioners applied for amending the writ petition and by an order dated 18.12.2023, this Court allowed the amendment, making it clear that this Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues added by way of amendment and that those would be decided when the writ petition was to be taken up for final hearing.
3. By the said amendment, the petitioners added certain paragraphs in the writ petition, to justify addition of respondent No.2A-Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as PCMC) and respondent No.2B-Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as PMRDA). The petitioners also added instances of specific plots from the said land being given on lease of 99 years to specific third parties. The petitioners also gave details of the manner in which parts of the said land were transferred to respondent Nos.2A-PCMC and 2B-PMRDA. They also added reference to certain Government Resolutions (hereinafter referred to as GRs), concerning the policy of the respondent-State to allot 12.5% of the acquired land in the form of developed plots to owners, whose land has been acquired. Prayer clause (aa) was also added, claiming that the aforesaid entire land of 25.39 acres ought to be returned by respondent Nos.2A and 2B to the petitioners or they be directed to pay compensation along with interest, after calculating the same in accordance with the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013). Prayer clause (aaa) was also added, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant benefit of the said GRs to the petitioners, which pertain to providing developed plots to land owners.
4. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to refer to the chronol
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....
Acquisition proceedings that have attained finality, with compensation paid and possession taken, cannot be challenged after a significant delay. Furthermore, the transfer of acquired land between st....
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.
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.
The court held that delay does not negate the right to compensation for property unlawfully appropriated by the State, emphasizing the need for due process and just compensation under established law....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse if the possession of the land was not taken and comp....
A subsequent purchaser can challenge land acquisition proceedings if they demonstrate a legal grievance, particularly where compensation has not been paid and possession has not been taken under the ....
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
