ARUN DADASO GOREversusSOU. NANDINIRAJE NIRANJAN TORASKAR

2026:BHC-KOL:9332-DB
                                               (1)                      2wp7721.19




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 7721 OF 2019

          Sou. Nandiniraje Niranjan Toraskar                      ….Petitioner

          VERSUS

          The State of Maharashtra
          Through Secretary, Rehabilitation Dept. And Ors       …..Respondents

                                       WITH
                          INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 525 OF 2026
                                         IN
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 7721 OF 2019
          Arun Dadaso Gore                                        .....Applicant

          VERSUS

          Sou. Nandiniraje Niranjan Toraskar                     .....Respondent

          Mr. Vishwanath Talkute i/b Mr. Pradeep Salgar a/w Ms. Vaishnavi A. Shelke,
          Advocate for the Petitioner
          Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Akshay Shinde i/b Mr.
          Siddharth Karpe, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 7 to 9
          Mr. Ketan Joshi a/w Mr. Vishwajeet Mohite, Advocate for the
          Respondent No. 11
          Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kale, AGP for the Respondent-State

                                   CORAM             :   RAJESH S. PATIL &
                                                         ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
                                      DATE           :   21 SEPTEMBER 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.           The present Petition is filed seeking the writ of mandamus,

          thereby directing the respondent No.4 / SDO, Satara to forthwith withdraw


                                                                                     1 of 7
                                     (2)                       2wp7721.19




and/or cancel the order dated 28-05-2019 thereby the respondent Nos.7 and 8

have allotted the lands out of the land of the Petitioner, bearing Gat number

44/1 admeasuring 8- Hectares 3-R at village Kolki, Taluka Phaltan, District

Satara. So also, writ has been sought for a declaration that the acquisition of

the land admeasuring 3-Hectares 18-R from land bearing Gat number 44/1 at

village Kolki has been lapsed as per the provisions of Section 24(2) of the

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

2.            We have heard counsels for both the sides and with their help,

we have gone through the affidavits-in-reply along with additional affidavit

and rejoinder. We have also been shown the following the judgments:

       i.    Harayana State Industrial and Infrastructural Development
       Corporation (HSIIDC) and Ors Vs M/s. Janta Oil Company and Ors [Civil
       Appeal Nos.1147-1149 of 2025]
       ii.   Indore Development Authority Vs Manoharlal & Ors1
       iii.  Land Acquisition Collector (South), New Delhi and another Vs
       Suresh B. Kapur And others2

3.            The Supreme Court in the judgment of Indore Development

(supra) in paragraph No. 366 has held as under:

     “366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question as
           under :
           366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the
           award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement
           of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation
           has to be determined under the provisions of Act of 2013.

1 (2020) 8 SCC 129
2 (2023) 2 SCC 155

                                                                            2 of 7
                          (3)                         2wp7721.19




366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window
period of five years excluding the period covered by an
interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as
provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the
Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.
366.3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession
and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The
deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section
24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of
authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of
the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other words, in case
possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid
then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been
paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section
24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of
compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is
provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been
deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all
beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for
land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of
the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the
Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest
under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit
of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land
acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to
the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation
under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the “landowners” as
on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4
of the Act of 1894.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation
as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not
open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section
24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in
court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the
amount under Section 31(1). Land owners who had refused to


                                                                   3 of 7
                                      (4)                         2wp7721.19




            accept compensation or who sought reference for higher
            compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings
            had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
            366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be
            treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b).
            366.7. The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894
            and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of
            inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on
            taking possession under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the
            land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section
            24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession has been taken
            there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
            366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed
            lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have
            failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay
            compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013
            came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending
            with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014. The period of
            subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be
            excluded in the computation of five years.
            366.9. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to
            new cause of action to question the legality of concluded
            proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a
            proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of
            2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred
            claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow
            landowners to question the legality of mode of taking
            possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
            compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
            acquisition.”

4.          As far as the present proceeding is concerned, para 366.9 refers

to an amount being deposited in a PLA account.

5.          The Respondent-State in its affidavit dated 09 June 2026 in

paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 has stated that the amount of compensation has been


                                                                               4 of 7
                                     (5)                      2wp7721.19




deposited in P.L.A. account maintained by the District Treasury Office,

Satara, by an enclosure of Exhibit-R1. There is a mention about Village Kolki

and the amount mentioned in front of that village is Rs. 99,52,241/-. The said

amount been deposited by way of cheque No. 662771 dated 29 April 2006.

The said amount also includes the compensation amount payable to the

present Petitioner, being an amount of Rs. 5,33,355/-.

6.            In the present proceeding, the award was passed on 01

December 2000 and there is no dispute that the said award has not been

challenged by the Petitioner.

7.            Compensation amount deposited in the P.L.A. account on 09

May 2006. Therefore, one of the twin conditions as mentioned by the

Supreme Court in the judgment of Indore Development (supra) has been

satisfied. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Indore Development

(supra) has been further followed by the Supreme Court in the judgment of

Suresh Kapoor (Supra). In paragraph No.10, there is a discussion about the

conclusion arrived at by the High Court following the judgment of

Gyanender Singh v. Union of India3. By concluding the said judgment, the

Bench considered the view taken by the Supreme Court in the judgment of

Indore Development (supra) which overruled the earlier judgment of Pune

Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Solanki4, and further, it also
3 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1694
4 (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 496

                                                                           5 of 7
                                    (6)                       2wp7721.19




overruled the view taken in Gyanendra Singh (Supra). Similarly, in the

latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Haryana State Industrial And

Infrastructure Development Corporation (supra) the Supreme Court

considered the facts wherein the acquiring department had deposited the

entire compensation in the account of L.A.C.-cum-D.R.O., and the entitled

person to get their compensation from office. A similar kind of argument has

been made before us which was advanced considered in the said judgment

wherein it was held that the deposit of the entire compensation in the account

of L.A.C.-cum-D.R.O. does amount to deposit in terms of Land Acquisition

Act of 2013. The Bench considering the view taken by the Constitution

Bench in Indore Development (supra) held that amount deposited in the

account of L.A.C.-cum-D.R.O., at least one of the conditions of the twin

conditions under Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 stands

satisfied. The view taken in both the judgments are squarely applicable to the

present proceeding.

8.           As far as the judgments referred by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, in Namdeo Bhagwan Khedkar Vs State of

Maharashtra and Ors5          and Annaso Deogonda Patil Vs State of

Maharashtra and Ors [WP/2506/2019 dated 03-08-2026], in the facts of

both these judgments, admittedly, there was no deposit made by the

5 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 11468

                                                                           6 of 7
                                      (7)                    2wp7721.19




State/acquiring body. Hence, one of the twin conditions as mentioned in the

judgment of Indore Development (Supra) was not satisfied. Hence, the view

taken in both the judgments would not be applicable in the present

proceedings where, admittedly, the amount has been deposited in PLA. As far

as the other judgments cited on behalf of the Petitioner are concerned, these

are the judgments delivered before the judgment of the Constitution Bench

delivered its judgment in Indore Development (Supra). Hence, those

judgments would not be applicable to the present case.

9.              In view of the same, the Petition fails and the same stands

dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-.

10.             In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending Interim

Application stand disposed of.




        [ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]                     [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]



VishalK/2wp7721.19




                                                                          7 of 7