Bombay High Court

RAMESH MAGANBHAI TALAJIA AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS

Decided: 22 June 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: MANISH PITALE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT

Holding

The Court allowed the petitioners to amend the writ petition as proposed, subject to procedural directions.

Summary

The petitioners sought to amend their writ petition after a land acquisition award was passed on 1 June 2026, adding new grounds of challenge and prayer clauses. They argued that the amendment was necessary to address the potential demolition of a temple on the disputed property, claiming urgency. The respondents opposed the amendment, contending it would prejudice their position. The Court, noting that the amendment would merely place new events on record and would not constitute acceptance of the petitioners' assertions, allowed the amendment while granting respondents an opportunity to respond. Directions were issued for service of the amended petition within a week and for respondents to file reply affidavits within three weeks, with the matter listed for further hearing on 20 July 2026.

Issues considered

Whether an interim amendment to a writ petition may be permitted after a land acquisition award is passed
Whether the Court can allow amendment on grounds of urgency concerning a temple on the acquired land

Subjects

interim application
amendment of writ petition
land acquisition
temple
urgency
procedural law
civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                                42-47-wp-5685-2026.doc



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4305 OF 2026
                                IN
                   WRIT PETITION NO. 5685 OF 2026

Ramesh Maganbhai Talajia And              ..         Petitioners/Applicants
Ors
V/S
The State Of Maharashtra Thru ..                         Respondents
Secretary And Ors
                              -------------------
Mr. Anil Ahuja (VC)               with     Bhavna        Khemani,       for      the
applicants/petitioners.
Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo, for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl.           G.P. with       A.R.     Deolekar, AGP in
IA/4305/2026.
Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP, for State.
                              --------------------
                              CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
                                      SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

                                DATE : 22ND JUNE 2026.
PC:


1.        By this application, the applicants (petitioners) seek to amend
the petition in the light of certain events that have taken place during
the pendency of the petition. It is brought to the notice of this Court
that during the pendency of the petition the award has been passed on
01/06/2026 and in this context the petitioners wish to add certain
grounds of challenge and they also propose to add certain prayer
clauses in the petition.


 varsha                                                                        1 of 3
                                                              42-47-wp-5685-2026.doc



2.        Although the prayers made in the application are vehemently
opposed by the respondents, we are inclined to allow the application
in the light of the fact that certain events that occurred during the
pendency of the petition are sought to be placed on record, and in that
context the grounds of challenge and prayer clauses are proposed to be
added. Allowing the amendment certainly does not mean that this
Court has accepted the assertions sought to be made on behalf of the
applicants/petitioners by way of the proposed amendment.

3.        The respondents would certainly have an opportunity to respond
to the same before this Court takes any view on the matter.

4.        Urgency was projected on behalf of the petitioners on the ground
that a temple existing on the property may face adverse action in the
light of the fact that now the award has been passed on 01/06/2026.
The apprehension is answered by a document already filed in the Writ
Petition at Exhibit-K, wherein the objections raised on behalf of the
petitioners were rejected.

5.        In the said document it is specifically recorded as a stance of the
land acquisition authority that the subject temple will not be
demolished and on the other hand, the respondent-Municipal
Corporation would take steps for its beautification. This sufficiently
addresses the apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioners
with regard to the said temple.

6.        In view of the above, the application is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a). The petitioners are permitted to amend the petition
as per the amendment proposed in paragraph 4 of the application. The
amendment be carried out within one week from today. The amended
papers shall be served immediately upon the respondents.

 varsha                                                                      2 of 3
                                                              42-47-wp-5685-2026.doc



7.        The respondents shall file their reply affidavits to the amended
writ petition within three weeks from the date of service of the
amended writ petition.

8.        Since reply affidavits in the original writ petition are already on
record, and rejoinder has already been filed, no further time shall be
granted to the respondents to file their additional reply affidavits to
the amended writ petition.

9.        List this petition for further consideration on 20th July 2026,
'High on Board'.




(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)                          (MANISH PITALE, J.)




 varsha                                                                      3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…