Bombay High Court

SHAMSHAD MIYALAL NAIKWADI AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court disposed of the petition, directing the parties to obtain clarification from the competent authority and withholding compensation until such clarification is received.

Summary

The petitioners challenged a direction in Clause 2 of an order dated 6 August 2024, alleging it conflicted with the reasoning of that order, while respondents 3 to 6 claimed a typographical error in Clause 1 of the same order. The High Court examined the contentions and found that the dispute required clarification from the authority that originally issued the order. Accordingly, the Court directed both parties to approach the competent authority for necessary clarification. It further ordered that, until such clarification is obtained, the compensation relating to Gat No. 945/1/A should not be disbursed. The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the parties to seek clarification. No substantive amendment to the impugned order was made by the Court.

Issues considered

Whether the direction in Clause 2 of the order dated 6 August 2024 is inconsistent with the reasoning of that order
Whether there is a typographical error in Clause 1 of the order dated 6 August 2024
Whether the Court can direct the parties to approach the competent authority for clarification
Whether compensation can be withheld pending clarification from the competent authority

Subjects

writ petition
order clarification
typographical error
compensation
competent authority
high court

Judgment

2026:BHC-KOL:8468-DB

19-WP-12205-2024.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 12205 OF 2024

Shamshad Miyalal Naikwadi And Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents

——————
Mr. Praful Shah (Through VC), for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.A.Alaspurkar, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-State.
Adv. I.M.Khairdi a/w Adv. M.S.Mulla, for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
——————
Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Date : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026
P. C. :

1. The contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the

direction in Clause 2 of the order dated 6 th August, 2024, is not in

consonance with the reasoning given in the impugned order, whereas

the contention of learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 is that

there is a typographical error in Clause 1 of the impugned order dated

6th August, 2024.

2. Considering the dispute raised by the parties, it would be

appropriate if the parties are directed to approach the competent

authority to seek necessary clarifications in that regard.

3. The Petition is disposed of with liberty to the parties to approach

Arya Chavan 1 of 2
19-WP-12205-2024.doc

the competent authority and seek necessary clarifications as regards

the relevant part of the order.

4. As compensation has not been withdrawn in respect of Gat No.

945/1/A, till the clarification is obtained from the competent authority,

compensation not to be disbursed to the parties.

[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

Arya Chavan 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…