Bombay High Court

SATISH RAMCHANDRA SHINDE PATIL AND ORS.versusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is dismissed as infructuous because the highway has already been built on the land.

Summary

The petitioners, Satish Ramchandra Shinde Patil & Ors., filed a writ petition challenging a notification dated 2 December 2016 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956. The petition sought to contest the acquisition of land for a highway project. Respondent No.4, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), informed the Court that the highway had already been constructed on the disputed land many years earlier. The Court, relying on this statement, held that the petition had become infructuous because the relief sought could no longer be granted. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous, without addressing the merits of the challenge to the notification.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition challenging the notification under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 is maintainable when the highway has already been constructed on the subject land.

Legislation cited

National Highways Act, 1956 — s. 3-A

Subjects

National Highways Act
Section 3-A
land acquisition
writ petition
infructuous
highway construction

Judgment

                                                   15 - WP - 13000 - 2017.docx


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

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 13000 OF 2017

Satish Ramchandra Shinde Patil & Ors.          … Petitioners
           V/s.
The Union of India & Ors.                      … Respondents

Adv. Rugwed Kinkar i/b Drupad Patil, for the petitioner.
Mr. R. P. Kadam, AGP for the respondent – State.
Adv. Shridhar Patil, for the respondent no.1. (Union of India)
Adv. Aniruddha Karanjkar a/w Rutuja Kharat h/f Adv. Rakesh Singh,
for the respondent 4.

                              CORAM       : RAJESH S. PATIL, &
                                            ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

                              DATED       : OCTOBER 5, 2026
P.C.:


1.      Ms. Rutuja Kharat, holding for Advocate Rakesh Singh, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.4-National Highways Authority

of India has submitted that this petition has now become infructuous

as the highway has been built on the subject land many years back.


2.      In view of the statement made by the learned counsel

appearing for the National Highways Authority of India, the present

petition, which is seeking a relief for challenging the notification

dated 2 December 2016 issued by the Road Transport and Highways

Ministry of the Union of India under Section 3-A of the National

Highways Act, 1956, has now become infructuous.



Rushi
                                                    15 - WP - 13000 - 2017.docx


3.      Hence, the Writ Petition stands disposed of as infructuous.




 (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)                            (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)




Rushi

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…