Digitally

2026:BHC-A P i R g A nS JA d K : T y1A239-DB PRAJAKTA SAGAR 5WP-16555-23.DOC SAGAR VARTAK VARTAK Date:

2026.01.13 15:11:16 +0530 Prajakta Vartak IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.16555 OF 2023 Ramu Laxman Pawde Decd. Thr. LR. ...Petitioner vs.

The District Collector, Pune & Ors. ...Respondents _______

Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande with Mr. Santosh P. Kurade, for Petitioner.

Ms. Neha Bhide, Govt. Pleader with Ms. Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. Govt. Pleader with Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for the State.

_______

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 8 JANUARY, 2026 P.C.

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

“A. this Hon’ble Court may, by an appropriate writ, order or direction, direct the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Pune & Sub- Divisional Officer, Shirur, to process the Petitioner’s application and allot house alternate house a Plot No.73 out of Gat No.1181/2/1 at Wadav Bk, Gavthan, Tal. Shirur, Dist. Pune as prayed for, if the Petitioner is entitled to get alternate land as prayed for within a period of three weeks from the date of order of this Hon’ble Court.”

2. The petitioner claims to be a project affected person of the Chaskaman Irrigation Project, hence he was entitled to allotment of an alternate house. The petitioner states that he filed an application for allotment of an alternate house to the competent authority, which according to him, has not yet been processed. Hence, this petition is filed. It is, however, quite surprising to note that the alleged cause of action has arisen in the year 1987. The petitioner himself contends that his predecessor was displaced and not the petitioner, as the acquisition pertained to the predecessor’s house. After a gap of about 35 years, the petitioner made an application for allotment of an alternate house stating that he has not received any house anywhere in the State.

3. We have perused the memo of the petition. The petitioner is pursuing such cause after a delay of about 35 years, and that too a cause of action, which according to the petitioner, had occurred to his predecessors, as clearly seen from the memo of the petition. The petitioner has also failed to provide any explanation for such gross delay and laches so as to persuade us to entertain this petition in respect of a cause of action which had arisen to the petitioner about 35 years ago. We are also not sure as to whether the petitioner was even a major at the time when the land acquisition took place.

4. In this view of the matter, as the petition being hopelessly barred by the principles of delay and laches, it cannot be entertained. The law in such context was considered by this Court in dismissing similar proceedings in Tatoba Rama Chavan (since deceased) through his legal heir Taramati Tatoba Chavan,v/s. Collector, Kolhapur District, Kolhapur & Ors. (Civil Writ Petition No. 3883 of 2022), which in our opinion, clearly becomes applicable. In Tatoba Rama Chavan (supra) the Court made following observations where the same cause of action of such dead claim was being pursued:-

“8. The Petitioner in the present petition is blissfully silent on several basic requirements for her to maintain this petition. She has not made any averments as to whether any occupancy price was paid by the Petitioner's father and any other preconditions required for grant of land were complied with. The process of acquisition is over in the year 1983 itself. In the absence of the same, coupled with the fact of no explanation for the delay, it cannot be said that the Petitioner as made out even a prima facie case. On the contrary, it appears on the face of it a dead/stale claim is sought to be revived by filing the present petition.

9. We have come across some proceedings where, as a matter of course, the petitioners whose land was acquired ages back like in the present case. It appears to be a tendency to approach this Court seeking