Bombay High Court
PANKAJ ANIL PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the respondents must file affidavits disclosing the extent of the petitioner's property required for the high‑speed rail project and dismissed the second writ petition as withdrawn.
Summary
The Bombay High Court heard two writ petitions concerning land acquisition for the Mumbai‑Ahmedabad High Speed Rail project. In Petition No.11304/2026, the petitioner claimed that the project would adversely affect his property and sought clarification on the extent of land required, alleging procedural irregularities. The Court directed the State authorities (respondents 1‑6) and the National High Speed Rail Corporation (respondent 7) to file affidavits disclosing the exact portion of the petitioner’s property needed for the project. The Court set deadlines for filing reply and rejoinder affidavits to enable a prompt decision. In Petition No.13419/2025, the petitioner’s counsel sought to withdraw the petition, and the Court disposed of it as withdrawn, along with any pending applications.
Issues considered
- What is the extent of the petitioner's property required for acquisition for the High Speed Rail project?
- Whether the respondents must furnish affidavits to clarify the land needed before the court can decide the petition?
- Whether the procedural steps followed by the authorities in seeking acquisition are compliant with law?
- Whether the petitioner may withdraw the writ petition and have it dismissed?
Subjects
- High Speed Rail
- Land acquisition
- Writ petition
- Affidavit filing
- Petition withdrawal
- Civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
14_WP_11304_26 & anr.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11304 OF 2026
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13419 OF 2025
Pankaj Anil Patil … Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Public Works Department and others … Respondents
Mr. Kishor Patil a/w. Mr. Kundan Singh, Mr. Vinay Chavan and
Ms.Darshana Damle, i/b. Mr. Dilip Shinde for petitioner.
Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 6 – State authorities.
Mr. Aman Choudhary (through VC) a/w. Ms. Dhruvi Patni for respondent
No.7.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
Writ Petition No.11304 of 2026:
. During the course of arguments, we find that it would be
necessary for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 – State authorities as well as
respondent No.7 – National High Speed Rail Corporation to place
affidavits on record on the issue pertaining to the extent of the
property of the petitioner required, if at all, for the purposes of High
Speed Rail Project connecting Mumbai and Ahmedabad.
2. The petitioner asserts that the project will adversely affect the
subject property and therefore, its acquisition is necessary. Reliance is
placed on copy of survey report and also on draft consent award
placed on record with the writ petition.
Digitally signed
by PRIYA
PRIYA KAMBLI
KAMBLI Date:
2026.09.30 1/2
17:40:50 +0530
14_WP_11304_26 & anr.doc
3. It is alleged that when the petitioner could not satisfy
respondent No.2 – competent authority, suddenly the approach
changed and the respondent No.7 – corporation was approached for
a re-look at the proposal of acquisition, leading to a situation where
the corporation indicated that only 1% of the structure of the
petitioner would be affected.
4. In such a situation, we find that the respondents must place
their reply affidavits on record, so that the issues raised in the writ
petition can be decided at the earliest.
5. Issue notice, returnable on 27.10.2026 immediately after the
fresh matters. The learned AGP waives notice on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 to 6. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel waives notice
on behalf of respondent No.7. Hence, service is complete.
6. Respondents shall file their reply affidavits on or before
22.10.2026. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, shall be filed on or before the
next date of listing.
Writ Petition No.13419 of 2025:
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on
instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the petition.
8. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya Kambli
2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.