Bombay High Court

CHANDRASHEKHAR RAMCHANDRA KULKARNI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: KISHORE C SANT AJIT B KADETHANKAR

Holding

The petition was dismissed as the petitioners failed to establish any error or entitlement to an alternative plot.

Summary

The petitioners claimed that their father, the owner of house No. 238 in Palshi village, was omitted from the list of beneficiaries of an alternative plot under a rehabilitation scheme due to a typographical error, and that plot No. 200 was wrongly allotted to another person. They sought a court order directing the respondents to allocate the appropriate plot to them. The respondents argued that there was no documentary evidence of any name error, that compensation had already been paid in 1997, and that the petitioners had delayed raising the issue for over two decades, invoking laches. The court examined the 1997 communication, which only requested deletion of an uncle's name and sought compensation, and found no proof of a mistake concerning the petitioners' father's name. Consequently, the court held that the petitioners had not made out a case for relief. The writ petition was therefore dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether a typographical error in the name of the landowner can be corrected by directing allocation of an alternative plot under the rehabilitation scheme.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to an alternative plot under the rehabilitation scheme.
Whether the petition is barred by laches due to the petitioners' delay in raising the claim.

Subjects

land acquisition
rehabilitation scheme
typographical error
writ petition
laches
compensation
property rights

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:31468-DB


                                                1               33-wp 15161-2019.odt



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 15161 OF 2019

                 Chandrashekhar Ramchandra Kulkarni
                 And Others                                                .. Petitioners

                        Versus

                 The State Of Maharashtra And Others                       .. Respondents

                 Mr. Amol G. Vasmatkar, Advocate for Petitioners.
                 Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
                 Mr. S. G. Sangle, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.

                                        CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
                                         DATE       :   27th JULY, 2026.

                 PER COURT :-

                 1.     Heard learned advocate for the petitioners, learned A.G.P.

                 for the respondents-State and learned advocate for respondent

                 No. 5.


                 2.     It is the case of the petitioners that their father namely

                 Ramchandra Baburao Kulkarni was the owner of house property

                 bearing No. 238 of village Palshi (Bu.), Taluka Kannad, Dist.

                 Aurangabad. After acquisition of the land/house alternative plots

                 were given to the persons whose lands were acquired. However,

                 in the list of the persons to whom plots are allotted no name of
                              2             33-wp 15161-2019.odt


father of the present petitioners is shown and instead of that plot

No. 200 is allotted to one Ramrao Sarjerao. It is claimed that

because of typographical error while recording the name of father

of the petitioners they are deprived of the benefit of getting

alternative plot under the rehabilitation scheme.


3.   The learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently argued

that, it is only because of typographical error the petitioners are

deprived of the property. He thus submits that, it is necessary to

direct the respondents to allot the plot under rehabilitation

scheme.


4.   The learned A.G.P. vehemently opposes the petition.           He

submits that, except mere statement of the petitioners there is

nothing on record to show that the petitioners father’s name was

wrongly typed. In fact, compensation is paid for the house which

is around Rs. 2,59,732/- on 19.12.1997 to the owner of house

No. 238. The learned A.G.P. thus submits that there is no scheme

to grant alternative plot under the rehabilitation scheme.         He

submits that entire thing has taken place in the year 1997. The

first representation by the present petitioners was made on

28.11.1997. Thereafter there is no communication of whatsoever
                               3            33-wp 15161-2019.odt


nature is made till 16.10.2018. When the petitioners again issued

communication on 16.10.2018 even the references given in the

said letter are of the letter dated 04.07.2018 and 21.08.2018. He

thus submits that the petitioners have approached the authorities

and thereafter this Court after much delay and laches. He thus

prays that the petition be dismissed.


5.       The learned advocate Mr. Sangle for respondent No. 5 also

opposes the petition.


6.       It is seen that, in the communication dated 28.11.1997 a

request is made to delete the name of one Bhagwan Krushnrao

who appears to be uncle of the present petitioners.            There is

prayer made for giving only compensation.          There is no any

document shown to substantiate the case of the petitioners. Thus,

this Court finds that, there is no case made out to allow the

petition. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order

as to costs.



( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.)                ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )




P.S.B.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…