IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12510 OF 2025 Balasaheb Sopan Dorge ...Petitioner Versus State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents _______

Mr. Sumit Khaire for Petitioner.

Ms. Tanu Bhatia, AGP for State - Respondent Nos.1 to 7.

_______

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 18 DECEMBER 2025 Oral Judgment (Per:- G. S. Kulkarni, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following reliefs:

“a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction to Respondents to decide the application dated 21/4/2025 filed by the Petitioner.

b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction to Respondents to quash & set aside the allotment order dated 30/5/2016 passed by District Resettlement Officer, Pune in favor of the Respondent No 8 to 13, 14 to 18 respectively in respect of the Old Gat no 210 New Gat No 531 situated at Village Yawat Station, Tal- Daund, Dist-Pune.

c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction to Respondents to quash & set aside the allotment order dated 3/9/2019 passed by District Resettlement Officer, Pune in favor of the Respondent No 19 to 21 in respect of the Old Gat no 215 New Gat No.504/2 situated at Villate Yawat Station, Tal-Daund, Dist-Pune.”

3. The case of the petitioner is that in the present case no notification under Section 6 was issued declaring the intention of the respondents to acquire the land.

However, the petitioner’s land bearing old Gat No.210, New Gat No.531 and 215 and New Gat No.504/2 without following the due procedure in law was utilised by taking over the possession of land without payment of compensation.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, we need to accept the petitioners contention that in so far as the entitlement of the petitioner to receive compensation by an award to be declared in the present case would be covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court which are considered by this Court in its decision in Mrs. Sumitra Shridhar Khane Vs. Deputy Collector of Special Land Acquisition No.12, Kolhapur.¹ which was a case wherein the Court in similar circumstances directed the State to award compensation to the petitioner. The Court also considered as to why, in the said case, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would become applicable. The reason being, in such case, the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act except for passing an award was completed. However, the position in this case is different. The observations as made by the Court in such context are required to be noted which read thus:

36. The learned Additional Government Pleader has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chairman, State Bank of India vs M J James (supra). Reliance on this decision is also not well founded. In this decision, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the respondent, a dismissed employee, challenged his termination following an Inquiry Officer’s report. The dismissal order dated 18 April 1985 remained unchallenged for over four years, and the absence of a limitation period was argued during the appeal. In such context, the Supreme Court in such facts, held that what is a reasonable time cannot be put in a straight jacket formula or judicially codified. It was also held that in the facts of the case, a satisfactory explanation justifying the delay was required to be furnished, without which the Court held that it was difficult to hold that the appeal was preferred within a reasonable time. We are at a loss to understand as to how this decision which is on the principles of service law would apply to the facts of the present case and more particularly, when there are catena of decisions as noted above, directly on the propositions that the State cannot

1 Writ Petition No.4987 of 2022 along