Bombay High Court
BABAN DEVBA SADAKAL SINCE DECD THROU. L.H.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. THE PRINCIPAL SEC. WATER RESOURCES DEPT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
A land acquisition award cannot be modified or the land restored to former owners after it has vested in the State; the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, heirs of a landowner whose property was acquired in 1997, sought a direction to delete the land from the acquisition award and to modify the award after paying compensation with interest, claiming the land was never used for its public purpose. They relied on a 1973 Government Resolution stating that land not utilized within three years should be restored, and on a 2021 Bombay High Court order in Bapu Shivaji More. The Court held that the Land Acquisition Act vests the land in the State permanently, and that once vested, the land cannot be reassigned to former owners; any disposal must be through public auction. The Court also found the 1973 Resolution inapplicable because the petitioners remained in possession of the land despite having received compensation. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court concluded that allowing the petition would contravene established law and public policy. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a land acquisition award can be modified or the land deleted from the award after three decades.
- Whether the 1973 Government Resolution permitting restoration of unutilized land applies to the present case.
- Whether the State must dispose of vested land by public auction rather than returning it to former owners.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- award modification
- vested land
- public purpose
- compensation
- restoration of land
- statute of limitations
Judgment
1
16-wp-12544-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12544 OF 2026
Baban Devba Sadakal
(since deceased through LRs) and Others …Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others …Respondents
VISHAL
SUBHASH ******
PAREKAR
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
Mr. Y.B. Lengare a/w. Mr. Aditya Gaikwad and Mr. Sunny S.S., for the
PAREKAR
Date: 2026.09.29
17:37:52 +0530
Petitioners.
Smt. P.M.J. Deshpande, AGP, for the State.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned AGP
representing the State authorities.
2. By this petition, the Petitioners are seeking a direction for
deleting the subject property from acquisition and for modifying an
award passed as far back as on 24.11.1997. In the alternative, the
Petitioners are seeking a direction for the Respondents to delete the
subject land from acquisition and modify the aforesaid award, upon
the Petitioners depositing the compensation amount with the State
authorities. As a last option, the Petitioners are seeking a direction for
Vishal Parekar ….1
2
16-wp-12544-2026.doc
the Respondent State authorities to decide representation dated
01.08.2026 submitted by them seeking such a relief from the State
authorities.
3. The undisputed sequence of events in the present case is that
the subject land was acquired as far back as in the year 1997 when
Land Acquisition Award dated 24.11.1997 was passed. It is undisputed
that the Petitioners/ their predecessors received compensation amount
under the said award. It is a further admitted position that till
01.08.2026, the Petitioners did not make any claim before the
Respondent State authorities. In other words, after about 30 years
have passed, the Petitioners have woken up from their slumber and
made a representation dated 01.08.2026 before the Respondent State
authorities claiming the aforementioned relief.
4. There is no provision in law to seek "modification" of a land
acquisition award, and that too after about 30 years, by seeking
deletion of the subject property from the effect of the land acquisition
award. It is claimed that the subject property has not been utilized for
the purpose for which it was acquired and, therefore, now the
Petitioners after about 30 years are entitled to seek deletion of the
acquisition.
Vishal Parekar ….2
3
16-wp-12544-2026.doc
5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied upon Government
Resolution dated 10.10.1973 to claim that since the subject land was
not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired for a period of
three years, the land ought to be restored to the Petitioners as they are
ready to deposit the amount of compensation along with 6% interest.
Reliance is also placed on an order of this Court in Writ Petition No.
10131 of 2021 (Bapu Shivaji More vs. The State of Maharashtra &
Ors.) passed on 14.12.2021.
6. We find that the prayers made in the present writ petition
cannot be entertained in the light of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in a number of judgments, including order passed in
the case of State of Kerala and Others vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and
Another, (1997) 5 SCC 432. In the said order, it was held as follows:
4] In view of admitted section that the land in question was
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it stood vested in the
State free from all encumbrances. The question emerges
whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile
owners ? It is settled law that land is acquired for a public
purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any
other purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which
the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the
erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and
the amount Fetched in the public auction can be better utilised
for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of
Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that the
executive order is not in consonance with the provision of the
Act and is, therefore, invalid. under these circumstances, the
Division Bench is well justified in declaring the executive order
Vishal Parekar ….3
4
16-wp-12544-2026.doc
as invalid. whatever assignment is made, should be for a public
purpose. otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold
only through the public actions so that the public also gets
benefited by getting higher value.
7. Apart from this, we find that even the said Government
Resolution dated 10.10.1973 cannot apply to the facts of the present
case, simply because it stipulates that the benefit of the said
Government Resolution would be available if the subject land is not
utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired within a period of
three years from taking over of possession. In the present case, the
stated claim of the Petitioners is that they continue to be in possession
of the subject land. In other words, the Petitioners have continued in
possession of the subject land as per their own statement, despite
having collected the compensation in terms of the land acquisition
award dated 24.11.1997. Thus, the said Government Resolution does
not apply to the facts of the present case. For the same reasons, we are
of the opinion that the order in the case of Bapu Shivaji More (supra)
does not apply to the facts of the present case.
8. The above-quoted portion of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of M. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra) makes it abundantly
clear that once the land has vested in the State, there is no question of
Vishal Parekar ….4
5
16-wp-12544-2026.doc
assigning the land back to the erstwhile owners. The Supreme Court
has gone to the extent of holding that even if the land is to be
disposed of, it shall be put to public auction, and the amount fetched
in the public auction would be utilized for public purpose envisaged in
the Directive Principles of the Constitution. Therefore, there is no
question of entertaining the present writ petition. We also find that if
such prayers or representations, filed almost 30 years after the land
acquisition award has been rendered, are entertained, it would be a
travesty and it would amount to giving premium to persons who
illegally retain possession after the land acquisition award has been
passed and compensation has been duly paid.
9. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the present
writ petition, and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Vishal Parekar ….5
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.