Bombay High Court

BAPU BABURAV PATOLEversusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -4 (PANSHET BENEFITTED AREA) PUNE AND ORS

Decided: 28 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The review petition is dismissed as no error apparent on the face of the record is shown.

Summary

The petitioner sought a review of a 2019 order dismissing his writ petition that claimed the land acquisition award of 1974 had not been executed, alleging non‑payment of compensation and non‑delivery of possession. The acquisition began in 1969, the award named a now‑deceased owner, and the petitioner failed to establish his relationship to that owner. The State contested the claims, noting mutation entries and a panchanama from 1974 indicating possession had been delivered. The Court held that after a lapse of about 45 years, the petition lacked substance and could not be entertained under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. On review, the Court found no apparent error in the earlier order and therefore dismissed the review petition.

Issues considered

Whether the review petition can be entertained on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.
Whether the Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to investigate a land acquisition dispute after a lapse of 45 years.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 226

Subjects

Land Acquisition
Review Petition
Article 226
Compensation
Possession
Statute of Limitations
Extraordinary Jurisdiction

Judgment

                           varsha                                                            4-RPW-114-2026.doc



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                          REVIEW PETITION NO.114 OF 2026
                                                         IN
                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 107 OF 2018
                                                       WITH
                                      CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 11450 OF 2019

                      Bapu Baburav Patole                          ..           Petitioner
                      V/S.
                      The Special Land Acquisition                 ..         Respondents
                      Officer -4 (Panshet Benefitted
                      Area) Pune And Ors
                                                        -------------------
                      Mr. Nitin Deshpande, for the petitioner/applicant.
                      Ms. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, for the respondent/State.
VARSHA                                                 --------------------
DEEPAK
GAIKWAD
Digitally signed by
                                                       CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
VARSHA DEEPAK
GAIKWAD
Date: 2026.08.28
16:14:22 +0530
                                                               SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
                                                          DATE : 28th AUGUST 2026.
                      PC:


                      1.       Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

                      2.       By this Petition, the petitioner is seeking review of an order dated
                      07/02/2019 passed by this Court whereby the writ petition filed by the
                      petitioner claiming lapsing of acquisition was dismissed.

                      3.       Relevant portion of the order dated 07/02/2019 reads as
                      follows:

                                      3.    In the instant matter, the acquisition proceedings were
                                      initiated in 1969 and the award was declared in the year 1974.

                                                                                                        1 of 2
     varsha                                                           4-RPW-114-2026.doc


               The person whose name appeared in the award statement is no
               more and it would be difficult for the petitioner, who has not
               even stated his relationship with the original owner whose
               name appears in the award statement, to state as per his
               personal knowledge that the said person has neither received
               amount of compensation nor the possession of the property has
               been delivered. The belated petition has been presented after 45
               years from the date of award. The facts stated in the petition
               that the possession of the property has not been delivered or the
               amount of compensation has not been paid, have been disputed
               by the State. The mutation entries in the name of the State
               Government have been recorded more than 30 years back,
               whereas the panchanama in respect of delivery of possession
               has been drawn on 26th March 1974. The disputed questions
               raised in the petition, after lapse of about 45 years from the
               date of award, need not be investigated in exercise of its
               extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
               of India. The petition is devoid of any substance and the same
               deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed"

4.       Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon
perusal of the review petition, we do not find that the petitioner has
made out any ground to show an error apparent on the face of the
record of the order dated 07/02/2019. No ground for review is made
out.

5.       Review petition is dismissed.

6.       Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.



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

                                                                                 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…