Bombay High Court
MALLAPPA MAHALAPPA IRKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the additional 8 R of land was acquired or possessed illegally.
Summary
The petitioner, Mallappa Irkar, sought a court order directing the State of Maharashtra and other respondents to return 8 R of land in Deoni village that he claimed was taken without proper acquisition, or alternatively to complete acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He argued that while 32 R of his land had been lawfully acquired and compensated, an additional 8 R belonging to a co‑owner, Trymbak Deshmukh, was taken into possession without a mutation entry or compensation. The court found the petitioner's pleadings insufficient, noting the lack of documentary evidence, precise boundaries, or proof that the 8 R was acquired beyond the 32 R already settled. The court also held that without clear factual basis, it could not exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner has established that 8 R of land was illegally taken into possession by the respondents.
- Whether the High Court can, under Article 226, direct the return of the alleged extra land or order completion of acquisition proceedings.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- mutation
- compensation
- writ petition
- Article 226
- possession
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act
Judgment
-1-
wp1122.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
21 WRIT PETITION NO. 1122 OF 2026
Mallappa Mahalappa Irkar ….Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents
Mr. T. M. Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for the State.
CORAM : SMT VIBHA KANKANWADI
& HITEN S VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 4th MARCH, 2026.
PER COURT :
1. Present petition has been filed for directing Respondent Nos. 3
to 5 to return the land admeasuring 8 R in Gat No. 225/237 situated
at village Deoni Bk. Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur. In the alternate, the
Petitioner prays for direction to the Respondents to complete the
acquisition proceeding and to pass award under Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to grant other benefits in respect of
the acquired land admeasuring 8 R from Gat No. 225/237 situated at
village Deoni Bk. Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.
-2-
wp1122.26.odt
2. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner. He submits that
Petitioner’s land Gat No. 225/237 admeasuring 2 H 61 R situated at
Deoni Bk. Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur, was acquired to the extent of 32 R
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 22.12.1993. In the said
land, 8 R land owned by one Trymbak Deshmukh was also acquired.
The Petitioner was not satisfied with the compensation amount and
therefore, he filed Land Acquisition Reference No. 252/2012 in
respect of 32 R land. The Reference Court partly allowed the
reference on 16.02.2024. According to the Petitioner, said Trymbak
Deshmukh had not preferred any land acquisition proceeding in
respect of 8 R land. It is further submitted that the Sub Divisional
Engineer had sent a letter to the Sub-Divisional Officer requesting for
effecting mutation entry of the acquired land total admeasuring 40 R
on 13.01.2025 and thereafter mutation entry No. 5944 came to be
sanctioned for acquired land admeasuring 32 R owned by the
Petitioner only. Even mutation entry in respect of 8 R land owned by
Trymbak Deshmukh was not sanctioned. According to the Petitioner,
then the Superintendent Engineer has passed order on 01.06.2023
granting technical sanction for construction of building of Public
Works Sub-Division Deoni Bk. on acquired land of the Petitioner. The
construction of the said building has started. Though the acquisition
-3-
wp1122.26.odt
of land admeasuring 32 R is made yet Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, on
the basis of award, obtained possession of 40R land of the Petitioner
from Gat No. 225/237. The Petitioner states that he had made
applications/representations on 13.02.2024, 08.05.2024, 10.06.2024
and 30.08.2024 for return of land admeasuring 8 R taken in
possession by Respondent Nos. 3 and 5. Those representations have
not been addressed. Hence, this petition.
3. After hearing learned Advocate for the Petitioner as well as
going through the entire documents, it is absolutely not clear from
the pleadings as to when the possession of 8 R land of the Petitioner
was taken. Infact, earlier also there would have been measurement
when 32 R land was acquired in respect of which now there is no
dispute for the Petitioner regarding compensation also because his
Land Acquisition Reference has been partly allowed. As per the
pleadings itself, the mutation in respect of Trymbak Deshmukh has
not been sanctioned. In the petition, the Petitioner has not even
demonstrated by giving boundaries of the said 8 R land which
according to the Petitioner, has been taken in possession by the
Respondents. Without there being documents to support the
contention that extra 8 R land of the Petitioner has been taken in
-4-
wp1122.26.odt
possession illegally, we cannot exercise powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
4. It will not be out of place to mention here that upon query, the
learned Advocate for the Petitioner had sought time to file
documents. According to us, that exercise ought to have been made
earlier than filing petition. In respect of the main prayer i.e. return of
land, it would be a disputed question of fact because in any
communication, especially letter dated 21.05.2025, the Sub-
Divisional Officer cum SLAO, Nilanga is not accepting taking up of
possession of 8 R land. Thus, this Court, will not be in a position to
exercise constitutional powers. Even in alternate, unless it is
demonstrated that 8 R land apart from 32 R land belonging to the
Petitioner was acquired, there cannot be direction to the Respondents
to complete acquisition proceeding.
5. Hence, we dismiss the writ petition.
( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI )
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
Checking your session…