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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 248441

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAMHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. M. MODAK
NITIN KASHINATH JADHAV AND ANR. – Appellant
Versus
MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANR. – Respondent
WP/10028/2024



2025:BHC-AS:57932-DB

Satish Sangar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.10028 OF 2024

1. Nitin Kashinath Jadhav

Age : 48 Years, Occupation : Agriculturist, Residing at : Anandvali, District : Nashik.

2. Shivram Keshav Kadlag

Age : 48 Years, Occupation : Agriculturist, At and post : Anandvali, Taluka : Nashik,

District : Nashik.

Both Petitioners through their Constituted

Attorney:-

Mr.Deoram Parvat Sathe

Age : 60 Years, Occupation : Business,

A-11, Nilkamal Society, New Pandit Colony,

Nashik. ...Petitioners

Versus

1. Maharashtra Industrial Development

Digitally

signed by Corporation,

SEEMA S K E S E H M IT A IJ

KSHITIJ YELKAR Statutory Corporation, being an Undertaking

YELKAR Date:

2025.12.30

12:57:51 of the Government of Maharashtra, Having its

+0530

Registered Office at “Udyog Sarathi”, Marol

Indl. Area, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai : 400 093, and having its

Regional Office at MIDC,The Regional Officer,

Maharashtra Industrial Development

Corporation, Udyog Bhavan, Triambak Road,

Nashik.

2. The State of Maharashtra

Through Department of Industries, Energy,

Labour, Mantralaya, Mumbai : 400 032. ...Respondents

Mr.Rajshekhar Govilkar (Sr.Advocate) a/w Ms.Shaba N. Khan i/b.

Mr.Mihir Govilkar, for Petitioners.

Ms.Reena A. Salunkhe, AGP, for Respondent No.2 – State.

CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &

S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATED: 16th DECEMBER 2025. ORDER : (PER : S. M. MODAK, J.)

1. Considering the limited issue involved, we have finally heard the parties at the admission stage.

2. Learned Senior Advocate Shri. Govilkar argued for the Petitioners whereas learned AGP Ms. Reena Salunkhe argued for the Respondent No.2 – State. Though the Respondent No.1 – MIDC is acquiring body, there is no representation from their side.

3. The claim involved in this Petition is about entitlement of the Petitioners of certain amount on the ground of return of vacant land. There was water supply scheme for MIDC. The lands belonging to the Petitioner were acquired. The Award was passed on 2nd June 1990. Out of those acquired lands, Gat No.65/3 is owned by the Petitioner No.1 whereas Gat No.29/A and 63 were owned by the Petitioner No.2. They contend that they have handed over possession. However, compensation is not paid to them. There are lots of correspondence in between the Petitioners, MIDC and the State Government but to no avail. The correspondence is as follows:-

(a) Letter dated 08.04.2011 sent by Regional Officer, MIDC to the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, MIDC. It was informed that the land is to be sold by way of auction and it was directed to prepare proposal.

(b) Letter dated 31.10.2012 written by Regional Officer, to General Manager, Acquisition informing about the rates on the basis of use of land (these rates are informed by Sub-Registrar office).

(c) Letter dated 25.10.2013 written by Deputy Collector, Acquisition to Regional officer, MIDC informing following facts:-

(i) Compensation is not paid to the owners of the land (ii) Possession of the land was taken by MIDC by discussion (iii) MIDC was asked to verify whether the rent was paid by MIDC to the owners of the land.

(d) Letter written by Sub-Registrar dated 17.01.2017 addressed to the Manager, Acquisition MIDC informing the valuation.

(e) The order passed by Minister Industry and Mines dated 18.04.2017 directing to fix rates as per 2012 ready reckoner rate and directing to recover the amount by MIDC from the owners of land and then owners be handed over the possession of the land.

(f) Possession receipt dated 16.05.2017 executed by M/s. Sarang Hotel Private Limited.

(g) Letter written by Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 dated 13.03.2019 addressed to Executive officer, MIDC requesting to fix the rate as per 2012 ready reckoner rate.

(h) Letter by area Manager Acquisition addressed to Regional Officer, dated 05.04.2019, asking to prepare the certificate as per ready reckoner zoning.

(i) Letter dated 01.12.2020 addressed by Regional Officer, MIDC to the General Manager Acquisition ther

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