LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE D 15 a : t 5 e 1 : : 2 0 0 8 2 + 6. 0 0 5 1 3 .0 0 6 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8296 OF 2023 Yogesh Kamlakar Mangle & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10143 OF 2023 Santosh Ramchandra Balkawade ...Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 13025 OF 2023 Maruti Shivram Jaykar & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 16778 OF 2023 Kamlakar Raghunath Ahirrao ...Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 16779 OF 2023 Govind Poslya Gavit ...Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents _________

Mr. Eknath Dhokale with Ms. Darshna Kamble for Petitioners in WP 8296/23 &

WP 13025/23.

Mr. Gaurav Potnis with Ms. Payal Patil i/b. Ms. Pallavi H. Potnis for Petitioner in WP

10143/23.

Mr. Ajeet B. Kale a/w Sakshi Ajeet Kale for the Petitioner in WP No. 16778 of 2023. Mr. Vijay Patil, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yogesh Patil for Respondent/MSRDC in WP 8296/23, WP 13025/23 & WP 10143/23.

Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General with Mr. Sachit Bhogle, ‘B’ Panel Counsel and Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for State.

Mr. Rakesh Singh i/b. M. V. Kini & Co. for Respondent No.3/NHAI in WP

16779/2023. __________

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 24^th DECEMBER 2025.

Judgment (Per Aarti Sathe, J.) :-

1. This is a batch of writ petitions which raise common issue of law and fact. They are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The challenge in these petitions is primarily to a circular dated 24^th January 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned circular”) issued by the State Government through its Revenue and Forest Department, which is issued on the basis of orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the State of Haryana and Another Vs. Smt. Chander Kanta @ Kanta & Ors.¹ providing that from the date of issuance of a notification to acquire the land, sale instances which pertain to a period within one year before the issuance of such notification, would be required to be discarded and the land acquisition compensation shall be arrived at the actual market price prior to such period of one year and that on the basis of such fair market price the reasonable rates of compensation would be fixed. Illustratively, it was set out in the impugned circular that if the acquisition notification is published on 5^th January 2023, then the sale instances retrospectively from 4^th January 2023 to 4^th January 2022 would not be considered. It was notified that this would be applicable not only to the said project, but also to all the projects where the land acquisition is being undertaken.

R.F.A. No. 3469 of 2019

3. The prayers as made in these petitions are similar. In some of the petitions, there are further prayers challenging the constitutional validity of Explanation 1 to Section 26(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “2013 Act”). For convenience, we note “the prayers” as also “the facts” as set out in (Writ Petition No. 10143 of 2023, Santosh Ramchandra Balkawade) which we would consider to be the lead petition. The prayers as made in the said writ petition read thus:-

“A) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of certiorari or a Writ, Order and or Directions in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the Government resolution dated 24/01/2023.

B) That in the Alternative to Prayer clause A, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or a Writ Order and a Direction in the nature of Writ of mandamus holding that the Explanation 1 to Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is Ultra vires, Arbitrary and Void to the extent that sale instances/agreement to sale of o