PARVATI W/O MAHARUDRA KURBETTI DECD THR LRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR DIRECTOR OF RESETTLEMENT, REVENUE AND FOREST DEPT. AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:8462-DB

                                                                       1-WP-12205-2025 (C).doc


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

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 12205 OF 2025

                Parvati w/o. Maharudra Kurbetti
                Since deceased by Lr.
                R 1A. Gangubai Jambu Desai
                Age – 86 yrs., Occu. – Agriculture,
                R/o. Abdul Lat, Tal. Shirol,
                Dist. Kolhapur                                             ...Petitioner
                       Versus
                1. The State of Maharashtra
                   Through Director of Resettlement,
                   Revenue & Forest Department,
                   Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032
                2. Deputy Collector (Resettlement)
                   Kolhapur, Collector Office,
                   Kolhapur

                3. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)
                   No. 12, Collector Office,
                   Kolhapur                                                ...Respondents
                                             ——————
               Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale a/w Ms. Vrunali J. Vilankar for Petitioner.
               Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondents-State.
                                               ——————
                                                CORAM :        Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                               Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                  RESERVED ON              :   August 31, 2026.
                                  PRONOUNCED ON            :   September 03, 2026

               JUDGMENT : [Per : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

               1.      Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent and taken up for

               final disposal.


               Jamadar-SL                        1 of 14
                                                       1-WP-12205-2025 (C).doc


2.     By the present Petition, the Petitioner initially sought the relief of

declaration that the action of the Respondents in not determining the

compensation by completing the acquisition proceedings and passing

an Award in respect of acquired land of the Petitioner from Gat No.2358

admeasuring 76-R situated at Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur is illegal

and bad in law and for direction to initiate fresh acquisition

proceedings.

3.     During the pendency of the present Petition, the Respondent No.

3 - Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer No. 12, Kolhapur, filed

its affidavit-in-reply dated 24th June, 2026, bringing on record the Award

dated 1st November, 2004, pursuant to which the Petition came to be

amended, and by the amended prayer, the Petitioner seeks a

declaration that the impugned Award dated 1 st November, 2004, in

respect of the Petitioner's acquired land bearing Gat No.2358,

admeasuring 76-R, situated at Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur, is illegal

and bad in law, and that the entire acquisition proceedings are deemed

to have lapsed in view of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(for short, “LA Act”), and fresh acquisition proceedings be commenced.

4.     Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that on 8th January, 1987,

notice under Section 4(1) of the LA Act was published in respect of the

Petitioner's land bearing Gat No.2536, admeasuring 61-R, based on the

Notification dated 19th September, 1986, for the public purpose of


Jamadar-SL                        2 of 14
                                                   1-WP-12205-2025 (C).doc


resettlement of the Dudhganga Project displaced persons. During the

hearing under Section 5A of the LA Act, the deceased-Petitioner

landholder willingly offered alternate land bearing Gat No.2358,

admeasuring 76-R, in lieu of the notified land bearing Gat No.2536,

admeasuring 61-R, for the said public purpose, as the acquisition of Gat

No.2536 would have resulted in division of the land. The Respondent

authorities accepted the offer for acquisition of the alternate land Gat

No.2358 and obtained possession of the said land from the Petitioner

and also allotted the land to a project-affected person by the name of

Anandibai Soma Chavan, which is evident from Mutation Entry No.3786

dated 12th February, 1992.

5.     The original landowner expired on 9th May, 1990, and the name of

her daughter was duly entered in the record of rights in respect of both

Gat Nos.2536 and 2358. It is pleaded in the Petition that, erroneously,

the acquisition proceedings in respect of the earlier notified land Gat

No.2536, admeasuring 61-R, proceeded and an Award came to be

passed in respect of the said land. In the record of rights of Gat

No.2536, the name of the Collector was entered and subsequently came

to be deleted. The Respondent authorities initiated fresh acquisition

proceedings in respect of the acquired alternate land Gat No.2358,

admeasuring 76-R, and issued a Notification under Section 4 of the LA

Act on 19th April, 2001. Section 6 Notification was issued on 31 st


Jamadar-SL                      3 of 14
                                                       1-WP-12205-2025 (C).doc


December, 2001. On 8th April, 2002, notices under Section 9(3) and (4) of

the LA Act came to be issued in the name of the Petitioner.

6.      It is pleaded that thereafter the Petitioner visited the office of

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on various occasions seeking compensation for

the acquired land by passing a necessary Award, which was not done. It

is pleaded that in respect of Gat No.2358 admeasuring 76-R, the

notification under Section 4 was issued on 19th April, 2001 and,

considering the provisions of Section 11A of the LA Act, the acquisition

proceedings stand lapsed as the declaration under Section 6 was

published on 31st December, 2001 and Award is passed on 1st November,

2004.

7.      The amended Petition pleads that the Award dated 1 st November,

2004, which is brought on record by the Respondent's affidavit-in-reply,

was not to the knowledge of the Petitioner and, even considering the

said Award, the period of two years prescribed under Section 11A would

apply and the entire acquisition proceedings lapsed.

8.      By the affidavit-in-reply, the Deputy Collector and Land

Acquisition Officer pleads that Gat No.2358 was not part of the

acquisition proposal and the Petitioner's offer came to be accepted for

the handing over of Gat No.2358 in lieu of the original notified land. In

respect of the initial notified Gat No.2536, the Award was duly passed

on 9th March, 1990, and notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was


Jamadar-SL                       4 of 14
                                                      1-WP-12205-2025 (C).doc


issued on 28th August, 1990. Fresh proceedings were initiated for

acquisition of Gat No. 2358 by Notification under Section 4 of the LA

Act, and the Section 6 declaration came to be published on 10 th January,

2002, and the Award came to be passed on 1 st November, 2004. The

notices were issued to the concerned persons under Section 12(2) of

the LA Act. However, the Petitioner did not come for collecting the

amount of compensation, and after a period of 22 years, representation

has been made for release of the compensation, which was immediately

responded to by a letter dated 7th July, 2025, asking her to comply with

necessary procedural formalities.

9.     There is a rejoinder affidavit stating that there is no notice under

Section 12(2) of the LA Act annexed to the affidavit-in-reply in respect

of the Award dated 1st November, 2004. The Petitioner was not aware

of the passing of the Award and learnt about the same only upon

perusing the affidavit-in-reply.

10.    There is an additional affidavit filed by the Deputy Collector

(Land Acquisition) dated 27th August, 2026, relying upon judicial

pronouncements to plead that stale claim cannot be reopened even

though the Award in respect of Gat No.2358 was passed beyond the

period of 2 years.

11.    Mr. Ingale, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would

submit that the original notified land was Gat No.2536 admeasuring


Jamadar-SL                         5 of 14
                                                          1-WP-12205-2025 (C).doc


61-R and the alternate land, which was voluntarily handed over in lieu of

the notified land, was Gat No.2358 admeasuring 76-R, which was

acquired long back in the year 1987-88. He would further point out that

even accepting the Award dated 1st November, 2004 in respect of Gat

No.2358, which was the alternate land, Section 6 Notification was issued

on 31st December, 2001 and, therefore, the Award was beyond the

period of two years.

12.     Drawing attention to the provisions of Section 11A of the LA Act,

he submits that, by virtue of the said statutory provisions, the entire

proceedings for acquisition of land bearing Gat No.2358 admeasuring

76-R have lapsed. He would submit that as the acquired land bearing

Gat No.2358 has now been allotted to a project-affected person, he is

not seeking restoration of the land and is only confining his relief for

initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings and fresh Award of

compensation. He would further submit that the issue of delay and

laches cannot be considered in the case of a continuing cause of action,

and in the present case, as the compensation has not been paid, there is

a continuing cause of action. In support he relies upon the following

decisions :

      1.         Bapu Tatoba Chougule and Ors. Vs. The State of
      Maharashtra and Others1.

1   In Writ Petition No.15028 of 2022 dated 29.11.2023.



Jamadar-SL                                   6 of 14
                                                     1-WP-12205-2025 (C).doc


      2.       Shital Anna Walawade and Others Vs. State of
      Maharashtra and Others2.
      3.       Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs.Deputy Land
      Acquisition Officer and Another3.
      4.       Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and
      Others4.

13.     Per contra, learned AGP would submit that the Award was passed

on 1st November, 2004 and Section 12(2) notice was issued and it is

failure on the part of the Petitioner to collect the compensation which

has been determined by the Award dated 1st November, 2004. He

submits that it is open for the Petitioner to collect the compensation

which has been determined by the Award dated 1 st November, 2004

which was also communicated to her in response to her representation

on 7th July, 2025. He would submit that as the Award in respect of Gat

No.2536 admeasuring 61-R was passed within a period of 2 years of the

Notification issued under Section 4, the subsequent delay in passing the

Award in respect of Gat No.2358 admeasuring 76-R will not result in

lapsing of the reservation. He relies upon the following decisions.

      1.       Tatoba Rama Chavan, through her legal heir
      Sou.Nanda Balkrishna Mane Vs.Collector and Others 5.
      2.       State of T.N. and Another Vs.Mahalakshmi Ammal
      and Others6.
2   (2023) 3 Mh.L.J.560
3   AIR 1961 SC 1500
4   (2020) 2 SCC 569
5   2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1520
6   (1996) 7 SCC 269



Jamadar-SL                       7 of 14
                                                     1-WP-12205-2025 (C).doc


14.    We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

15.    There is no dispute about the fact that the Notification under

Section 4(1) of the LA Act was published on 8th January, 1987 in respect

of Gat No.2536 admeasuring 61-R. In the Section 5A hearing of

objections,   the   Petitioner's    predecessor   offered   Gat   No.2358

admeasuring 76-R in lieu of the original notified Gat No.2536

admeasuring 61-R. The offer was accepted by the Respondent-

Authority, which is evident from the fact that Mutation Entry No.3786

was effected in respect of Gat No.2358 admeasuring 76-R on 12 th

February, 1992 in the name of the allottee, who was the project-

affected person of Dudhganga Project, i.e. Anandibai Soma Chavan. The

Respondent-Authority therefore acquired the land bearing Gat No.2358

admeasuring 76-R which was offered by the Petitioner.

16.    Despite the same, instead of passing an Award in respect of the

acquired land, i.e. Gat No.2358, the Respondents passed an Award in

respect of Gat No. 2536 admeasuring 61-R on 9 th March, 1990, and

notice was issued under Section 12(2) of the LA Act determining the

compensation. This is sought to be taken in support of the contention

by Respondent-Authority that within a period of two years, the Award

was passed and, therefore, there is no lapsing within the meaning of

Section 11A of the LA Act. The said contention is clearly erroneous as

the Award was required to be passed in respect of Gat No.2358


Jamadar-SL                         8 of 14
                                                   1-WP-12205-2025 (C).doc


admeasuring 76-R and not in respect of Gat No.2536 admeasuring 61-R

which, though notified, was not acquired and instead the alternate land

was acquired. The passing of the Award in respect of Gat No.2536

admeasuring 61-R within a period of two years is meaningless. Realizing

their mistake, the Respondent Authorities on 19th April, 2001 issued a

Notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act in respect of Gat No.2358

admeasuring 76-R, long after the land came to be allotted to the

project-affected person in the year 1992. There is also a Section 6

declaration dated 31st December, 2001.

17.    The Petitioner came to the Court with a case that there was no

Award passed in respect of land bearing Gat No.2358 admeasuring 76-R

and therefore the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. It is only in the

reply-affidavit that the Respondent Authorities have produced the

Award dated 1st November, 2004 in respect of Gat No.2358

admeasuring 76-R.

18.    Upon repeated query by this Court, learned AGP would submit, on

instructions, that the record of the Respondent Authorities does not

disclose notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

The contention of Mr. Ingale that the Petitioner had no notice of the

Award has substance as the Respondents have not been able to

produce the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the LA Act in respect

of Award dated 1st November, 2004. Having failed to give notice of the


Jamadar-SL                      9 of 14
                                                     1-WP-12205-2025 (C).doc


Award to the Petitioner, it is not open for the Respondent Authorities

to thereafter raise the contention of a stale claim. In the case of Vidya

Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (supra), the Hon'ble

Apex Court was considering the issue of an acquisition which had taken

place in the year 1967-1968 for the purpose of construction of a road

which was completed in the year 1975. The Appellant therein did not

file any proceedings for compensation for the land, being an illiterate

widow coming from a rural background, and in the year 2010, when she

became aware of her rights to claim compensation, approached the

High Court. The contention of the Writ Petition being barred by laches

was taken by the Respondent-State. The Hon'ble Apex Court noted that

the right to property continued to be a constitutional right under Article

300A of the Constitution and that the State cannot dispossess a citizen

of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by

law. It further held that the obligation to pay compensation, though not

expressly included in Article 300A, can be inferred from that Article. It

held that delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing

cause of action or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of

the Court. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the Court to

exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. Noting

the facts of the case, where the person has been divested of her right to

property without being paid any compensation, the Hon'ble Apex Court


Jamadar-SL                      10 of 14
                                                       1-WP-12205-2025 (C).doc


negated the plea of delay and laches and directed the payment of

compensation with all statutory benefits.

19.    The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court is a sufficient answer to

the contentions raised by the Respondent Authorities as regards the

claim being a stale claim. Though the Respondent Authorities took

possession of Gat No.2358 admeasuring 76-R and allotted the same to

the project-affected person in the year 1992, there was no Award

passed in respect of Gat No.2358 admeasuring 76-R till the year 2004.

To compound the error, the Respondent Authorities passed an Award in

respect of Gat No.2536 admeasuring 61-R on 9th March, 1990, which land

was not at all acquired by the Respondent Authorities.

20.    The passing of the Award on 9 th March, 1990 is immaterial and

meaningless, as there was no acquisition of the said land and the

acquisition was of the alternate land being Gat No.2358 admeasuring

76-R. The Respondent Authorities, despite acquiring Gat No.2358 and

allotting the same to the project-affected person in the year 1992, did

not follow the due process of law and issued the Notification under

Section 4 of the LA Act only after a lapse of almost 9 years, i.e. on 19 th

April, 2001. The Award dated 1st November, 2004 passed in respect of

Gat No.2358 indicates that the Section 6 declaration was made on 31 st

December, 2001 and came to be published in the Official Gazette on

10th January, 2002 under Section 6(2) of the LA Act.


Jamadar-SL                      11 of 14
                                                      1-WP-12205-2025 (C).doc


21.    The provisions of Section 11A of the LA Act provide that the

Collector shall make an Award under Section 11 within a period of two

years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no Award is

made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of

the land shall lapse. As the declaration under Section 6 came to be

published on 10th January, 2002, the period of two years contemplated

under Section 11A lapsed on 10th January, 2004 and the Award passed

on 1st November, 2004 was beyond the period of two years. In order to

save the lapsing of the acquisition as contemplated under Section 11A,

Learned AGP would rely on the decision in the case of State of T.N. and

Another Vs.Mahalakshmi Ammal and Others (supra) by terming the

Award of 1990 which was passed in respect of Gat No.2536 as an initial

Award. In that case, the Notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act

was published on 26th July, 1978 and the Section 6 declaration was

published on 3rd June, 1980. The Award was passed on 22 nd September,

1986 and the possession was taken on 24 th November, 1986, and a

further Award was made on 31st August, 1990 in respect of Survey

No.2/11, which lands were not covered under the initial Notification

under Section 4(1), errata Notification published. The Hon’ble Apex

Court held that once errata was published, it dates back to date of initial

Section 4(1) Notification. In that case, the declaration was published

prior to the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 and, therefore, the proviso to


Jamadar-SL                      12 of 14
                                                      1-WP-12205-2025 (C).doc


Section 11A was applicable, which provided for the Award to be passed

within a period of two years from the commencement of the

Amendment Act of 1984. After the initial Award was made, in respect of

Survey No.2/11, a further Award was made on 31st August, 1990. The

Hon'ble Apex Court held that the initial award having been made within

two years, subsequent Award does not render the initial Award invalid.

The factual scenario before the Hon'ble Apex Court was completely

different, and the decision does not assist the Respondents.

22.    In the present case, the passing of Award dated 9 th March, 1990 in

respect of a land, which was never acquired, cannot be said to be an

initial Award in order to save the acquisition from lapsing.

23.    Though it is sought to be contended that notice was issued under

Section 12(2) of the LA Act in respect of Gat No.2358, no notice has

been produced on record and it is admitted that no such notice is

traceable. Surprisingly, the Respondents in reply to representation of

the Petitioner claiming compensation has responded on 7 th July, 2025

calling upon the Petitioner to submit various documents including

notice issued under Section 12(2) of the LA Act. The Petitioner was,

therefore, unaware of the passing of the Award, and the issue of delay

and laches cannot come in the way of the Petitioner to claim

compensation in accordance with the statutory provisions.

24.    The Petitioner has been deprived of her property by acquisition in


Jamadar-SL                      13 of 14
                                                                1-WP-12205-2025 (C).doc


the year 1992 and till date has not received compensation. The Award in

respect of Gat No. 2358 was passed after a period of two years after the

publication of the Section 6 declaration on 10ᵗʰ January, 2002, and the

provisions of Section 11A squarely apply. The Award dated 1st

November, 2004 was without jurisdiction as the acquisition proceedings

had lapsed. In peculiar facts of the case, as the acquired land is already

allotted to project-affected person, the Petitioner would confine her

relief to seeking direction to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings.

25.    Resultantly, the Respondent Authority is directed to initiate fresh

acquisition proceedings and pass a fresh Award determining the

compensation and pay the same to the Petitioner along with all

statutory benefits.

26.    In light of the above discussion, the Petition is allowed in terms of

prayer clause 17(b)(iv), which reads as under:

       “17(b)(iv)      To hold & declare that, the impugned Award dated
       01.11.2004 by Respondent No. 3 Special Land Acquisition Officer u/s. 11
       of L. A. Act, 1894 bearing No. LAQ-SR-337/2000 in respect of Petitioner's
       acquired land bearing Gat No.2358 admeasuring 0-H 76-R situated at
       Village Abdul Lat, Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur is illegal and bad in law
       and the entire acquisition proceedings of the land has deemed to have
       lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition
       Act, 1894 and the Respondents be directed to initiate fresh Acquisition
       Proceeding and pass fresh Award and determine the compensation and
       pay to the Petitioner forthwith alongwith interest from the date of
       possession.”

27.    Rule is made absolute in above terms.



 [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                              [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Jamadar-SL                            14 of 14