2025:BHC-AS:2599-DB Darshan Patil IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15880 OF 2022 (1) Mr. Pandurang Dunda Vishe ]

Age- 74 years, Occ- Agri., ] Residing at – Mukkam – Bedisgaon, ] Post- Malegaon, Taluka – Shahapur, ] Thane- 421 601. ]

(Since dead deleted in the Court, as per the leave of the Court)

(1)(2) Mr Kashinath Dunda Vishe ]

Age- 72 years, Occ- Agri., ] Residing at – Mukkam – Bedisgaon, ] Post – Malegaon, Taluka – Shahapur, ] Thane – 421 601. ]

(2)(3) Suvarna Kisan Vishe ]

Age- 63 years, Occ- Agri., ] Residing at – Mukkam – Bedisgaon, ] Post – Malegaon, Taluka – Shahapur, ]

District – Thane- 421 601. ]…Petitioners Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra ]

the Secretary Water Resources ] Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, ] Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. ]

(2) The Deputy Engineer, ]

Minor Irrigation, Sub-Division ] (Zilla Parishad), Panchayat Samiti ] Shahapur, Tal – Shahapur, ] District – Thane- 421 601. ]

(3) The Executive Engineer ]

(Minor Irrigation), ]

Zilla Parishad, Thane – 421 602 ]…Respondents ______________________________________________________

Dr Ramdas Sabban, a/w Mr S Kompalli, Adv Arundhati Sabban, Adv Pravin Sabban, for the Petitioners.

Mr Shailesh A Chavan, for Respondents 2 and 3. Mr A R Deolekar, AGP, for the Respondent-State.

______________________________________________________

CORAM: M.S. Sonak &

Jitendra Jain, JJ.

DATED: 17 January 2025 Oral Judgment ( p er M S Sonak, J. ) :-

1. Heard Mr Sabban for the petitioners, Mr Chavan for respondents 2 and 3 and Mr Deolekar learned AGP for the respondent-State.

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

3. Mr Sabban points out that the first petitioner has expired, and the second petitioner is the brother of the first petitioner. The third petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner’s deceased brother. Mr Sabban craves leave to delete the first petitioner from the cause title.

4. Accordingly, leave is granted. A necessary amendment is to be carried out in the cause title forthwith. Reverification is dispensed with.

5. The petitioners were the owners of the property admeasuring H.09=35=06 Ares surveyed under No.505/A, Village - Bedisgaon, Taluka- Shahapur, District – Thane (said property). In 1976-77, the respondents took possession of the petitioners’ property and constructed a minor percolation tank despite opposition from the petitioners. By communications dated 10 May 2011, 04 June 2011, 19 July 2011 and 14 July 2011, which have been placed on record by the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 informed the petitioners that land acquisition proceedings would be initiated following law and compensation would be paid to the petitioners. The communication dated 10 May 2011 and 14 November 2011, addressed by the Deputy Engineer, confirmed that the petitioners’ land was not acquired, though possession was taken over.

6. The petitioners were pursuing the matter of the acquisition, but since the second and third respondents were taking no steps for acquisition and payment of compensation, this petition was instituted seeking the following substantive relief:-

“(a) This Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order directing the respondent authorities to inspect & verify the Petitioners land area submerged in the Bedisgaon Percolation Tank Project, about 6 Acres of the Petitioners lands situated at Survey No. 505/A, at Bedisgaon, Taluka - Shahapur, District - Thane, and to acquire the land in accordance with law, the possession of which is already taken in 1976-77.”

7. Mr Asif Abbas Sayyed, Sub-Divisional Water Conservator Officer, has filed an affidavit on behalf of the second respondent. In the affidavit, the main grounds urged are delay and laches. There is no denying that the petitioners’ land was taken over for the construction of Bedisgaon Percolation Tank project, and the petitioners’ land