Bombay High Court
SHIVLAL SEVA RATHOD AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is disposed of due to the passage of time and the likelihood that compensation has already been determined and possibly paid.
Summary
The petitioners, Shivlal Seva Rathod and another, filed a petition seeking rental compensation from the State of Maharashtra. The State, through its Additional Government Pleader, submitted that an order determining the compensation had been passed in 2015 and that a direction for payment was issued, but no confirmation of actual payment was available. The Court noted that the compensation had likely been determined and possibly paid, and emphasized the considerable lapse of time since the order. Given the passage of time and the uncertainty regarding payment, the Court found no merit in continuing the petition. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, effectively dismissing it.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate judicial response when a petition for rental compensation is filed after the compensation has been determined and possibly paid, and considerable time has elapsed?
Subjects
- rental compensation
- petition disposal
- limitation period
- administrative order
- state liability
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:19092-DB
1 912 cp 159-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
912 CONT. PETITION NO. 159 OF 2016
IN WP/2144/2015
SHIVLAL SEVA RATHOD AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…
Ms. Chaitali R. Choudhari, AGP for Respondent-State
….
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATED : 28/04/2026
P. C. :
1. None appears for the Petitioner.
2. Learned AGP submits that an order regarding payment of
rental compensation to the petitioners has already been passed,
which is annexed to the reply at page 33. However, the learned AGP
does not have instructions as to whether the said amount has been
paid to the petitioners. It appears that the direction for such
payment was issued in the year 2015 and thereafter, on
26/06/2015, an order for determination of compensation was
passed.
3. In view of the aforesaid, there is reason to believe that the
compensation was determined and might have been paid to the
petitioners. Having regard to the passage of time, we deem it
appropriate to dispose of the petition. Accordingly, the petition
stands disposed of.
( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )
VS Maind/-
Checking your session…