Bombay High Court
SINDHUBAI BALIRAM CHAVANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU. G.P. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is dismissed as it fails to demonstrate any substantive link between the 1964 acquisition award and the petitioner’s land, rendering the claim frivolous.
Summary
The petitioner, Sindhubai Baliram Chavan, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra to correct revenue records for her land in Raigad, alleging that acquisition proceedings from 1964 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act and Section 11A of the 1894 Act. The Court noted that the claim relied on a 7/12 extract and a Right to Information response, which did not establish any connection between the 1964 acquisition award and the petitioner’s land. The petition also referenced a previously withdrawn writ (W.P. No.431 of 2023). The Court, citing the precedent in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020), held that such claims are frivolous when based on decades‑old acquisitions without substantive proof. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Issues considered
- The petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the 1964 acquisition award has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- The petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the State should be directed to amend revenue records in favour of the petitioner.
- Whether the petition constitutes a frivolous or vexatious claim under established jurisprudence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- lapse of acquisition
- mandamus
- revenue records
- Article 226
- frivolous petition
- Right to Information Act
Judgment
8_WP1008_26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1008 OF 2026
Sindhubai Baliram Chavan … Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents
Ms. Sneha Agrawal a/w. Ms. Shweta Rathod i/b. Elixir Legal Services for
Petitioner.
Ms. Pooja Patil, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for Respondent No.6.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026
P.C. :
. Heard Ms.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Ms.Patil, learned AGP for the respondent - State authorities.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-
“a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any
appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, directing the Respondents to forthwith
make necessary changes in the revenue records of the
Petitioner's land situated at Barvai, Taluka - Panvel, District
Raigad, thereby entering the name of the Petitioner, being the
owner of the said land, in view of the acquisition proceedings
being lapsed under the provisions of section 11A of the Land
Acquisition Act;
MINAL Digitally
by MINAL
signed
SANDIP Date:
SANDIP PARAB
2026.09.09
PARAB 19:10:53 +0530 b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any
appropriate Writ/Order/Direction in the like nature of Article
226 of the Constitution of India;
i. To hold and declare that the acquisition
proceedings initiated by the Respondent No. 2 vide
award dated 30th October, 1964, in respect of the said
land of the Petitioner has lapsed in view of the provision
u/s. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
1/3
8_WP1008_26.doc
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013;
ii. To hold and declare that impugned acquisition
proceedings in respect of the Petitioner's notified land
situated at Barvai, Taluka - Panvel, District - Raigad has
deemed to have lapsed in view of the provisions under
section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894;
c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the said
petition, the Respondents be restrained by an order of this
Hon'ble Court from any manner transferring, alienating the
possession of the said land of the Petitioner situated at Barvai,
Taluka Panvel, District Raigad or any part thereof, to any other
third party;
d) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c) above;
e) Cost of this Petition;
f) For such further and other reliefs as the nature and
circumstances of the case may require.”
3. We are surprised that the petitioner is seeking a declaration of
lapsing of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Right of Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation,
and Resettlement Act, 2013 in respect of a land acquisition award passed
as far back as on 30.10.1964. This is another case indicating that the
apprehension expressed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in its
judgement in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal
and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, that the position of law clarified in that
judgement may lead to frivolous claims like the present one pertaining to
acquisitions completed decades ago, coming true.
4. One of the prayers in this petition is a direction or a writ of
mandamus to be issued to the respondent State authorities to make
necessary changes in the revenue records.
5. The documents filed with this petition show that this petitioner
had earlier filed Writ Petition No.431 of 2023 for similar reliefs, which
2/3
8_WP1008_26.doc
was withdrawn unconditionally as recorded in the order dated
18.11.2024 passed by this Court.
6. In the present petition, it is stated that since further documents are
collected by the petitioner, the instant writ petition is filed. The only
document that appears to have surfaced after unconditional withdrawal
of the earlier writ petition is a response to a query made under the Right
to Information Act, 2005.
7. We find this to be a typical petition of the petitioner seeking to
rely upon irrelevant documents to somehow stake claim in respect of a
piece of land, which appears to have been acquired decades ago. Even
the said aspect is not clear, for the reason that the petitioner is unable to
connect the land acquisition award dated 30.10.1964 with her claim in
respect of the subject land.
8. This is evident from the documents brought to our notice by
learned AGP in the form of exhibits ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. Exhibit ‘A’ is a
photocopy of the 7/12 extract (revenue record) upon which the petitioner
herself is relying. It pertains to land located in Gat No.99/1. Exhibits ‘B’
and ‘C’ are notifications issued for acquisition of land in Gat No.99.
Thus, there does not appear to be any relation between the said
documents and yet, reliance is placed upon the same to claim that there
is either lapsing of acquisition or that the petitioner is entitled for
‘necessary corrections’ in the revenue record.
9. We find no substance in the present writ petition and it appears to
be an attempt on the part of the petitioner to somehow engage the
respondents in litigation so as to extract some relief for which there is no
basis made out in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Minal Parab
3/3
Checking your session…