Bombay High Court
SHUBHARAMBH PROPERTIES LLP THR PARTNER REENA JAINversusTHE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GEN. ADMINISTRATION) THANE AND LAND ACQ. OFFICER AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The agreements executed under Section 19‑B(2) of the Maharashtra Highways Act constitute final just compensation, precluding any further compensation for the internal‑road and open‑space portions.
Summary
The petitioners filed five writ petitions seeking additional compensation for portions of land reserved for internal roads and open spaces that were acquired for the Nagpur‑Mumbai Highway. The lands had been converted to non‑agricultural use and acquired under the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955, with compensation determined by agreement under Section 19‑B(2) and a statutory 25% uplift. The agreements, executed in 2019‑2020, expressly recorded that no compensation was payable for the internal‑road/open‑space portions, a decision of the District Level Committee. Years later, the petitioners – through power‑of‑attorney holders or assignees – claimed that those portions were taken “virtually free of cost” violating Article 300A. The Court held that the agreements constitute final just compensation, that the parties voluntarily accepted the District Level Committee’s determinations, and that the later claims are barred. Consequently, all writ petitions and related interim applications were dismissed.
Issues considered
- The validity of claims for additional compensation for land portions (internal roads/open spaces) not covered by the compensation agreements.
- Whether the hand‑written clause reserving a right to claim further compensation is enforceable.
- Whether petitions filed by power‑of‑attorney holders or assignees after several years are maintainable.
- Whether Section 19‑B(3) of the Highways Act applies despite the parties having agreed under Section 19‑B(2).
- Whether the agreements constitute final just compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and the 2013 Act.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 198, 201, 318(4), 336(1), 338, 340(1), 61
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11(2)
- Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 — s. 15(2)(iii), 17, 18(1), 18(2), 19-B(2), 19-B(3)
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — s. 126(1)(a), 126(1)(b)
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- Maharashtra Highways Act
- Section 19-B
- internal roads
- open spaces
- power of attorney
- writ petition
- Article 300A
- agreement
- District Level Committee
Judgment
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1614 OF 2026
Ravindra Shankar Sawant … Petitioner
vs.
Deputy Collector (General Administration), Thane
and Land Acquisition Officer, Thane & others … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11696 OF 2023
Anil Govindprasad Jain and another … Petitioners
vs.
Deputy Collector (General Administration), Thane
and Land Acquisition Officer, Thane & others … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 16450 OF 2024
Prashant Nivrutti Khedkar,
Through Power of Attorney holder
Nikhil Radheshyam Agrawal … Petitioner
vs.
Deputy Collector (General Administration), Thane
and Land Acquisition Officer, Thane & others … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15265 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 11950 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 15265 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15256 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 11946 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 15256 OF 2025
Digitally
signed by
PRIYA PRIYA
Date:
KAMBLI
KAMBLI 2026.09.02
17:44:48
+0530
1/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
Shubharambh Properties LLP,
Through partner Reena Jain … Petitioner
vs. /Applicant
Deputy Collector (General Administration), Thane
and Land Acquisition Officer, Thane & others … Respondents
Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr. Vivek Punjabi,
Mr.Ashish Venugopal, Ms. Shubhra Swamy, Mr. Sahil Panjwani and Mr.
Ritik Gupta, i/b. Mr. Onam Hingorani for petitioner in WP/16450/2024.
Mr. Vivek Punjabi, Mr. Sahil Panjwani and Mr. Ritik Gupta, i/b. Mr. Onam
Hingorani for petitioner in WP/15256/2025.
Mr. Vivek Salunkhe a/w. Mr. Vivek Punjabi, Mr. Priyansh Jain, Mr. Sahil
Panjwani, Mr. Ritik Gupta and Mr. Onam Hingorani for petitioner in
WP/15265/2025.
Mr. Onam Hingorani a/w. Ms. Pragati Patil and Mr. Ashutosh Shukla for
petitioners in WP/1614/2026 and WP/11696/2023.
Ms. Pooja Patil, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State in WP/1614/2026.
Ms. P. M. J. Deshpande, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State in
WP/11696/2023.
Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State in
WP/16450/2024.
Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State in WP/15265/2025
& applicant in IA(St)/11950/2026.
Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State in WP/15256/2025
& applicant in IA(St)/11946/2026.
Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh a/w.
Mr.Arun Siwach, Ms. Priyanka Mitra, Ms. Nupur Shah and Ms. Vidhi
Saxena, i/b. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for respondent No.4 – MSRDC in
WP/1614/2026 and WP/11696/2023.
Mr. Fredun DeVitre, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh a/w.
Mr. Arun Siwach, Ms. Nupur Shah, Ms. Vidhi Saxena, Ms. Priyanka Mitra
and Mr. Shubh Sahai, i/b. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for respondent
No.4 – MSRDC in WP/16450/2024.
2/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Arun Siwach, Ms. Nupur Shah, Ms. Vidhi
Saxena, Ms. Priyanka Mitra and Mr. Shubh Sahai, i/b. Cyril Amarchand
Mangaldas for respondent No.4 – MSRDC in WP/15256/2025 and
WP/15265/2025.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
Reserved on : 10th JULY, 2026
Pronounced on : 02nd SEPTEMBER, 2026
JUDGEMENT: (Per Manish Pitale, J):
. The petitioners in these five writ petitions have raised identical
grounds for seeking relief of a direction to the respondents to
compute and pay compensation to the petitioners for acquisition of
portions reserved in the subject lands for roads and open spaces,
under the provisions of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as the Highways Act) and The Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of
2013).
2. These petitions pertain to various pieces of lands located in
survey numbers in Villages Lahe and Birwadi, Taluka Shahpur,
District Thane. All these lands had been converted from agricultural
to non-agricultural use and they were all acquired for the purposes of
Nagpur-Mumbai Samriddhi Mahamarg (hereinafter referred to as the
Nagpur-Mumbai Highway).
3. The respondent – State issued notification dated 26.07.2018,
under Section 15(2)(iii) read with Section 17 of the Highways Act,
notifying the subject lands for acquisition for Nagpur-Mumbai
Highway. Thereafter, the respondent – State issued notification dated
3/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
05.11.2018, under Section 18(1) of the Highways Act and by virtue
of Section 18(2) thereof, the subject lands vested in the State
Government.
4. The State Government constituted a District Level Committee
for ascertaining the criteria for payment of compensation, in respect
of acquisition of lands for Nagpur-Mumbai Highway. As per Section
19-B of the Highways Act, there are two modes of determining
compensation viz. (i) as per Section 19-B(2), by agreement between
the State Government and the land owner/claimant; and (ii) as per
Section 19-B(3), where there is no agreement, by the Land
Acquisition Officer and the quantum is determined as per the
provisions of the Act of 2013.
5. In the present case, it is undisputed that compensation was
determined and paid by agreement, under Section 19-B(2) of the
Highways Act. Accordingly, agreements were executed between the
petitioners and the State Government in August 2019 and August
2020, under which the amounts of compensation were determined.
As per the policy of the State Government, since the acquisition was
by way of agreement, additional compensation of 25% was added.
Thereupon, the petitioners handed over possession of the subject
lands to the respondents and the amounts agreed between the
parties along with additional component of 25% compensation, were
paid to the petitioners.
6. The controversy in the present case concerns the grievance of
the petitioners that the portions of lands reserved for internal roads
and open spaces, etc., were not considered at the time of payment of
compensation and that such portions of land were taken over by the
4/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
respondent authorities virtually free of cost, thereby violating the
right to property of the petitioners, under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India.
7. On the other hand, the respondents contend that all the
agreements executed with the petitioners referred to deliberations
and decisions of the District Level Committee, wherein the amounts
of compensation for the portions of lands reserved for the aforesaid
purposes, were recorded as nil. The petitioners were all aware about
the said aspect of the matter and still, they voluntarily agreed to
enter into the said agreements. In such a situation, they cannot be
permitted to turn around and claim relief in the present petitions.
8. It was highlighted that the original land owners/farmers were
not pursuing the present petitions, but these petitions were filed
belatedly by assignees and/or power of attorney holders. These
persons had made it a business to get such documents executed from
the original land owners and to agitate such issues belatedly, thereby
wrongly seeking to invoke Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
9. Before referring to the submissions made in these petitions on
behalf of the petitioners and respondents, it would be appropriate to
briefly refer to the facts pertaining to each of these writ petitions.
Since Writ Petition No.16450 of 2024 was argued as the lead matter,
the facts pertaining thereto are being referred to first, during
narration hereinbelow.
10. In Writ Petition No.16450 of 2024, the petitioner – Prashant
Nivrutti Khedkar is represented by power of attorney holder Nikhil
Radheshyam Agrawal. The subject land in the present case, is located
5/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
in Survey No.172B at Village Lahe, Taluka Shahpur, District Thane,
admeasuring 1877 sq.mtrs. Pursuant to the notifications issued for
acquisition of land for Nagpur-Mumbai Highway, the petitioner i.e.
the original land owner Prashant Nivrutti Khedkar executed
agreement with the respondent – State through the Land Acquisition
Officer. The said agreement was executed on 20.08.2020, whereby
the said petitioner accepted compensation to the tune of ₹ 87,91,118
for acquisition of the said land.
11. It is an admitted position that upon execution of the said
agreement dated 20.08.2020 and payment of compensation as per
the said agreement, simultaneously the said petitioner handed over
possession of the said entire land admeasuring 1877 sq.mtrs. to the
respondent authorities. This included the portions of land reserved
for internal roads and open spaces. It is the case of the said petitioner
that compensation was paid only for 410 sq.mtrs. and that no
compensation was made for the balance 1467 sq. mtrs., for which
the said petition was filed.
12. Along with the petition, at Exhibit J, a document is annexed,
showing that the said petitioner – Prashant Nivrutti Khedkar, for the
first time, approached the respondents on 09.09.2024, claiming
compensation for the said balance area of land of 1467 sq.mtrs. This
was after four years from the date of execution of agreement and
handing over possession to the respondents. Thereafter, this petition
was filed on 30.09.2024.
13. It is also an admitted position that the petition was filed by the
said Prashant Nivrutti Khedkar through power of attorney holder
Nikhil Radheshyam Agrawal. The power of attorney was obviously
6/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
executed much after the land had already vested in the respondent –
State, as per notification dated 05.11.2018, issued under Section
18(2) of the Highways Act.
14. It is also to be noted that in the last paragraph of the said
agreement, a hand-written portion appears to have been added,
recording that the petitioner Prashant Nivrutti Khedkar was
executing the agreement, reserving his right to claim compensation
for the open spaces and internal roads. The respondents contend that
this hand-written portion was surreptitiously and subsequently
added.
15. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent –
(MSRDC), it was brought to the notice of this Court that
subsequently, on 20.07.2022, the petitioner Prashant Nivrutti
Khedkar himself addressed a letter to the Deputy Collector (General
Administration) and Land Acquisition Officer, stating that the said
hand-written portion towards the end of the agreement, was wrongly
added by him and that he was taking back the said hand-written
portion, further stating that the agreement may be construed without
the said portion. The respondents have placed much reliance on the
fact that this document was deliberately suppressed in the writ
petition and that on this ground itself, the writ petition ought to be
dismissed.
16. Apart from this, in the reply affidavit, the respondent – MSRDC
relied upon the contents of the agreement, read with the contents of
the deliberations and decisions of the District Level Committee and
contended that since the petitioner had voluntarily executed the
agreement, accepted the compensation and handed over possession
7/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
of the entire land, there was no question of entertaining the writ
petition filed more than four years after the acquisition and that too,
at the behest of a power of attorney holder, who is in the business of
getting documents executed from such land owners, only to pursue
such baseless litigation.
17. The respondent – Assistant Director, Town Planning, Thane
also filed reply affidavit, opposing the writ petition. In the said reply
affidavit, reference was made to the Unified Development Control
and Promotion Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the DC
Regulations), to contend that when the order was passed, converting
the land for non-agricultural use, in terms of the relevant Regulation
of the DC Regulations, the portions of lands reserved for internal lay
out roads, was to be handed over to the Planning authority without
any compensation. Relevant documents in that context were annexed
to the affidavit. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit and the
pleadings were completed.
18. In Writ Petition No.1641 of 2026, the petitioner is concerned
with the land located in Survey No.567 of Village Lahe, Taluka
Shahpur, District Thane, also acquired for the aforesaid Nagpur-
Mumbai Highway. The very same notifications dated 26.07.2018 and
05.11.2018 under the Highways Act, are relevant for this writ
petition also.
19. In the said case, the petitioner contends that as per agreement
dated 23.08.2019, the acquisition was limited to 14906 sq.mtrs, for
which payment was made. It was contended that out of the larger
plot area, an area of 9345 sq.mtrs. was reserved for open spaces and
area of 7096 sq.mtrs. was reserved for internal roads and therefore,
8/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
the petitioner was deprived of compensation for a total area of
16531 sq.mtrs. On this basis, the petitioner prayed for computation
and payment of compensation, as per the provisions of Highways Act
read with the Act of 2013, for area of land to the extent of 16531
sq.mtrs.
20. In the said agreement dated 23.08.2019 also, a hand-written
endorsement, similar to the one noted hereinabove, was included.
But, respondent – MSRDC, in its reply affidavit, annexed a copy of
letter dated 13.07.2022, addressed by the said petitioner to the Land
Acquisition Officer, withdrawing the said hand-written portion and
submitted that the agreement shall be construed without the said
portion. Here again, the respondents emphasized on suppression of
the said document, while seeking disposal of the writ petition.
21. In the reply affidavit, respondent – MSRDC also placed on
record the deliberations of District Level Committee and relied upon
the contents of the said agreement executed with the petitioner, to
claim that there was no question of payment of any further
compensation.
22. The petitioner relied upon a document at Exhibit J, being a
letter purportedly addressed by the petitioner to the respondents,
seeking compensation for the land covered under internal roads and
open spaces. It is to be noted that this document does not show any
date and there is no endorsement about its receipt in the office of
any of the respondents.
23. Writ Petition Nos.15256 of 2025 and 15265 of 2025 are both
filed by Shubharambh Properties LLP, claiming to be an assignee of
9/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
the original land owners with whom the respondent – State had
executed agreement for acquisition of land. It is an admitted position
that Zero FIR No.1 of 2026 dated 12.03.2026 was registered in
Shahpur Police Station, District Thane, against the original land
owners and the partners of the petitioner – Shubharambh Properties
LLP, on a complaint submitted by the Deputy Collector and
Administrator of respondent – MSRDC, with regard to execution of
the said assignment deeds pertaining to properties that are subject
matter of the said two writ petitions.
24. The FIR had been registered on the ground that despite the
subject lands having been vested in the respondent – State and the
revenue records having been mutated in favour of respondent –
MSRDC, the original land owners proceeded to illegally execute the
assignment deeds in favour of petitioner – Shubharambh Properties
LLP. In this backdrop, offences were registered against the said
persons under Sections 198, 201, 318(4), 336(1), 338, 340(1) and
61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
25. Writ Petition No.15256 of 2025 is concerned with land situated
at Survey No.656 in Village Birwadi, Taluka Shahpur, District Thane.
Pursuant to the said notifications, agreement dated 23.08.2019 was
executed. As per the said agreement, the compensation amount was
disbursed to the original land owners and possession of entire
notified land for acquisition i.e. 13539 sq.mtrs., was taken. The
petitioner claims that land reserved for internal roads and open
spaces admeasuring total 4832 sq.mtrs., was taken without payment
of any compensation and hence, appropriate directions were
required to be issued for payment of compensation.
10/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
26. Writ Petition No.15265 of 2025 is concerned with land situated
at Survey No.655 in Village Birwadi, Taluka Shahpur, District Thane.
The aforementioned two notifications triggered the acquisition
process of the said portion of land for Nagpur-Mumbai Highway.
Pursuant to the said notifications, agreement dated 23.08.2019 was
executed between the original land owners concerned with
Hindustan Buildwell Private Limited and the Land Acquisition
Officer.
27. As per the agreement, the compensation amount was
disbursed to the original land owners and possession of entire
notified land for acquisition i.e. 16814 sq.mtrs., was taken. The
petitioner claims that land reserved for internal roads and open
spaces admeasuring 3157 sq.mtrs., was taken without payment of
any compensation and hence, appropriate directions were required
to be issued for compensation to be computed and paid, under the
provisions of Highways Act read with the Act of 2013.
28. The respondent – MSRDC filed its reply affidavit in these two
petitions, contesting the claims made therein, heavily relying upon
registration of the said FIR and questioning the very locus of the
petitioner – Shubharambh Properties LLP in pursuing the writ
petitions.
29. In these petitions, just before the hearing was conducted, the
original petitioners filed two applications. Interim Application
(Stamp) No.11946 of 2026 was filed in Writ Petition No.15256 of
2025 and Interim Application (Stamp) No.11950 of 2026 was filed in
Writ Petition No.15265 of 2025, to bring on record the original land
owners i.e. Mr. Ajay Vedprakash Chhabra and Ms. Rajni Ajay Chhabra
11/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
as co-petitioners in these writ petitions. The respondents vehemently
opposed these applications and filed their reply affidavits. The said
applications were taken up for hearing and consideration along with
these writ petitions.
30. In Writ Petition No.11696 of 2023, the grievance of the
petitioners pertains to acquisition of their lands located in Village
Lahe, Taluka Shahpur, District Thane. According to the petitioners, in
terms of the said notifications issued for acquisition of lands,
although larger area of land was notified for acquisition,
compensation was paid in terms of the agreement for lesser area and
accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for computation and payment
of compensation for area admeasuring 5560 sq.mtrs. reserved for the
purposes of internal roads and open spaces, under the provisions of
the Highways Act and the Act of 2013. In this case also, reference
was made to a hand-written portion added towards the end of the
agreement dated 23.08.2019, wherein the petitioners had reserved
their right to claim compensation with regard to the said remaining
portion.
31. In this petition also, the respondent – MSRDC filed its reply
affidavit, annexing a letter dated 13.07.2022 submitted by the
petitioners before the Land Acquisition Officer, stating that the hand-
written portion in the last part of the agreement was being
withdrawn and it should be ignored. It was submitted that this vital
fact and document were suppressed in the petition and on this
ground alone, the petition deserved to be dismissed. Reference was
also made to the deliberations of the District Level Committee and a
chart recording that zero compensation was being offered for the
said portion of land reserved for internal roads and open spaces. It
12/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
was submitted that the arguments raised by the respondents in the
other petitions also equally applied to the said petition and that
therefore, this petition also deserved to be dismissed.
32. Additionally, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the
petition was not only belatedly filed, but it was not pursued
diligently before this Court, as it was initially dismissed by an order
of the Registrar on account of failure to remove the office objections.
Subsequently, it was restored. It was submitted that the agreement in
this petition as also the agreements in the other connected writ
petitions, showed that one of the persons, who signed as a witness,
was a partner in a firm of which the said Nikhil Radheshyam
Agrawal was a partner, thereby showing direct connection between
the said persons and the cause sought to be agitated in these
petitions. On this basis, it was submitted that the picture sought to be
portrayed by the petitioners about being farmers/land owners,
ignorant of their rights, who were not able to understand the purport
of the agreements, was not based on facts. On this basis, it was
submitted that all the petitions deserved to be dismissed.
33. The arguments on behalf of the petitioners were led by
Mr.Sakhardande, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
in Writ Petition No.16450 of 2024. Mr. Punjabi, learned counsel
appeared for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.15256 of 2025, while
Mr. Salunkhe, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.15265 of 2025. Mr. Hingorani, learned counsel appeared
for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1614 of 2026 and Writ Petition
No.11696 of 2023.
13/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
34. The learned counsel appearing for these petitioners in these
writ petitions, submitted that a bare perusal of the agreements
between the petitioners on the one hand and the respondent – Land
Acquisition Officer on the other, would show that the agreements
were limited to the areas of land recorded in each one of them. It
was emphasized that the subject matter of the agreements being the
specific areas of lands mentioned therein, necessarily demonstrated
that compensation agreed upon and disbursed to the petitioners, was
limited to the areas mentioned in the respective agreements.
35. On this basis, it was submitted that the respondents could not
be allowed to rely upon the contents of the agreements, to claim that
the said agreements pertained to the larger pieces of land notified for
acquisition. It was submitted that on this ground alone, the writ
petitions deserved to be allowed, as possession of larger pieces of
lands were taken, while compensation was computed and calculated
for smaller portions of lands of the petitioners. It was submitted that
therefore, there was a clear violation of rights of the petitioners,
under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
36. Reliance was placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court,
in the case of Bank of India and another vs. K. Mohandas and others ,
(2009) 5 SCC 313, as regards construction of the subject agreements
on the basis of the words used therein. It was submitted that
subsequent conduct of the parties would not determine the
interpretation of clauses of the agreement. It was also emphasized on
the basis of the said judgement that since the agreements were in the
form specified by the respondents, if at all there was lack of clarity in
any of the terms, the interpretation of the same would necessarily
have to be against the respondents.
14/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
37. Reliance was also placed on the judgement of the Supreme
Court, in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another vs.
Bimal Kumar Shah and others, (2024) 10 SCC 533, to contend that
seven sub-rights of the right to property, specified in the said
judgement of the Supreme Court, were violated in the facts of the
present case, indicating violation of Article 300A of the Constitution
of India. Reliance was also placed on the judgement of the Supreme
Court, in the case of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and
others vs. Vijay Nagar Apartments and others , 2026 SCC OnLine SC
904, to contend that unequal bargaining power between the
respondents and the petitioners, cannot be ignored by the Court and
that the respondents cannot be permitted to escape the liability of
suitably compensating the petitioners by relying upon the contents of
the said agreements. It was submitted that the clauses of agreements
ought to be strictly construed in favour of the petitioners, in the facts
and circumstances of the present case.
38. It was further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court, in
the case of Murlidhar s/o. Rama Veer and others vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others (judgement and order dated 09.12.2021
passed in Writ Petition No.2806 of 2020), had held in favour of the
land owners and claimants, after taking into consideration the
deliberations and decisions of the District Level Committee. It was
submitted that in the said case, this Court issued appropriate
directions, setting aside the rates of compensation determined by the
District Level Committee and hence, appropriate relief can be
granted in the present writ petitions also.
39. The learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon
recent judgement of this Court, in the case of Pune Ex-servicemen
15/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. The Municipal Corporation of
City of Pune and others (judgement and order dated 06.05.2026
passed in Writ Petition No.5838 of 2010 and connected petitions). It
was submitted in the said judgement, this Court had struck down a
development control rule of the Corporation, which specified illusory
compensation of ₹ 1 for taking over of open spaces in sanctioned
layouts. It was submitted that in the present case also, the
respondents were seeking to justify their action of paying nil
compensation for lands reserved for internal roads and open spaces.
On this basis, it was submitted that the contentions raised on behalf
of the respondents deserved to be rejected.
40. It was further submitted that the ground of suppression of
facts being highlighted on behalf of the respondents, can be of no
consequence, in the light of the contents of the subject agreements. It
was further submitted that merely because power of attorney holders
and assignees were pursuing some of these writ petitions, the
respondents could not be absolved of their responsibility to justify
non-payment of compensation for large areas of land of which
possession was taken. On this basis, it was submitted that all the writ
petitions deserved to be allowed in terms of the prayers made
therein.
41. Dr. Milind Sathe, learned Advocate General appeared on behalf
of respondent – MSRDC in Writ Petition No.1614 of 2026 and Writ
Petition No.11696 of 2023. Mr. De Vitre, learned senior counsel
appeared on behalf of the said respondent in Writ Petition No.16450
of 2024. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appeared for the said
respondent in Writ Petition No.15256 of 2025 and Writ Petition
No.15265 of 2025.
16/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
42. Ms. Patil, learned AGP appeared for respondent Nos.1 to 3 –
State in Writ Petition No.1614 of 2026. Ms. Joshi-Deshpande,
learned AGP appeared for the said respondents in Writ Petition
No.11696 of 2023. Ms. Bhatia, learned AGP appeared for the said
respondents in Writ Petition No.16450 of 2024. Ms. Bane, learned
AGP appeared for the said respondents in Writ Petition No.15265 of
2025 and Mr. Pawar, learned AGP appeared for the said respondents
in Writ Petition No.15256 of 2025.
43. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of
respondent – MSRDC in the aforesaid two writ petitions, submitted
that there was a fundamental fallacy in the contentions raised on
behalf of the petitioners in all the writ petitions. Attention of this
Court was invited to the contents of the subject agreements executed
in August 2019 and August 2020 between the petitioners and the
respondent – Land Acquisition Officer. It was submitted that the
agreements copiously referred to the offer made by the respondent
authorities to the petitioners, while undertaking acquisition of the
subject lands, pursuant to the notifications issued under the
provisions of the Highways Act.
44. In this context, attention of this Court was invited to Sections
19-B(2) and (3) of the Highways Act, emphasizing that the two
modes of acquisition were evident from the said provisions. Under
Section 19-B(2) thereof, acquisition could be through agreement,
whereby the compensation amount is determined as per the
agreement between the parties. Under Section 19-B(3) thereof, when
no such agreement is reached, the matter is to be referred to the
Land Acquisition Officer for determination of amount of
compensation, inter alia, under the provisions of the Act of 2013.
17/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
45. It was emphasized that as per the policy of the State
Government, upon the land owners entering into an agreement
under Section 19-B(2) of the Highways Act for acquisition by consent
and through execution of such agreement, 25% additional
compensation is paid. It was submitted that undisputedly, in the
present petitions, all the petitioners opted for acquisition of their
lands by agreement under Section 19-B(2) thereof.
46. The learned Advocate General further referred to the contents
of the agreements, which demonstrated that the petitioners
voluntarily and without any reservation, accepted the quantum of
compensation determined by the District Level Committee in its
decisions. They agreed to accept the quantum determined by the said
Committee in full and final satisfaction of their claim towards
compensation. The contents of the agreements also demonstrated
that the petitioners, being land owners, did make certain requests, in
the context of the quantum of compensation determined by the said
Committee. Such requests were taken into consideration and
thereupon, the agreements were executed.
47. In that context, attention of this Court was invited to the actual
minutes of the meetings of the District Level Committee along with
the charts annexed thereto, emphasizing that with respect to the
lands covered under the internal roads and open spaces, the District
Level Committee had concluded that no compensation was payable.
It was emphasized that the petitioners, while executing the said
agreements, accepted the said aspect of the matter, as the offer for
execution of agreements was entirely based on the decisions of the
said Committee. On this basis, it was submitted that the petitioners
cannot be permitted to turn around and virtually challenge the
18/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
agreements themselves, to claim compensation for the portions of
lands covered under the internal roads and open spaces.
48. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgement of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ranveer Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, (2016) 14 SCC 191. It was submitted that as per
the said judgement, the agreed compensation amount has to be
treated as just compensation, permitting no addition or substitution
whatsoever. It was submitted that on this short ground, the writ
petitions deserved to be dismissed.
49. The learned Advocate General further submitted that in terms
of notification issued under Section 18(1) of the Highways Act, the
subject land concerning these petitions, stood vested absolutely in
the State Government, free from all encumbrances. Thereupon, the
petitioners voluntarily agreed to enter into the aforementioned
agreements under Section 19-B(2) of the Highways Act and the
quantum of compensation was determined on that basis. The hand-
written portion in the subject agreements stood withdrawn and
therefore, there was no question of consideration of the prayer for
computation and disbursal of compensation for the lands covered
under the internal roads and open spaces. It was submitted that the
said prayer could certainly not be entertained at the behest of power
of attorney holders and assignees.
50. Mr. DeVitre, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent –
MSRDC in Writ Petition No. 16450 of 2024 supported the
contentions of the learned Advocate General. He further added that
in the said case, the power of attorney itself was suspect. The
verification in support of the writ petition was signed and sworn by
19/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
the power of attorney holder Nikhil Radheshyam Agrawal, while at
the bottom of the petition, he signed as the petitioner himself.
Thereupon, the learned senior counsel invited attention of this Court
to the rejoinder affidavit to highlight that the contents thereof clearly
attributed personal knowledge of specific facts in the exclusive
knowledge of the petitioner – Prashant Nivrutti Khedkar, although
the rejoinder was signed and sworn by Nikhil Radheshyam Agrawal,
as the power of attorney. This created serious suspicion about the
form and manner in which the petition was filed, purportedly on the
basis of power of attorney executed by the petitioner – Prashant
Nivrutti Khedkar in favour of Nikhil Radheshyam Agrawal.
51. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the contents
of the agreement were absolutely clear and such agreement was
executed on the basis of the proceedings of the District Level
Committee, which recorded that no compensation was payable for
the lands reserved for internal roads. In such a situation, the writ
petition did not deserve to be entertained, having been filed more
than four years after execution of agreement dated 20.08.2020 and
handing over possession of the entire land simultaneously by the
petitioner. There was no question of the petitioner – Prashant
Nivrutti Khedkar executing power of attorney in favour of Nikhil
Radheshyam Agrawal after the agreement was executed, acted upon,
compensation having been disbursed and possession of the entire
land being handed over to the respondent authorities in August 2020
itself. It was submitted that the said Nikhil Radheshyam Agrawal had
made a business of approaching land owners, obtaining such powers
of attorney in his favour and thereupon, pursuing belated litigations,
only to somehow extract money from the respondent authorities.
Attention of this Court was invited to the details of the litigation
20/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
initiated by the said Nikhil Radheshyam Agrawal on the basis of such
powers of attorney and that too only notarized documents, without
any registration. It was submitted that in such a situation, the writ
petition deserved to be dismissed.
52. Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for
respondent – MSRDC in Writ petition Nos. 15256 of 2025 and 15265
of 2025, supported the contentions raised by the learned Advocate
General and the learned senior counsel appearing in the other writ
petition.
53. The learned AGPs who appeared for respondent authorities in
all the writ petitions also adopted the contentions raised by the
learned Advocate General and submitted that the petitions deserved
to be dismissed.
54. Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, this
Court has carefully considered the documents on record. The
material on record needs to be considered, in the context of the
provisions of the Highways Act, which provides for acquisition of
lands for the purposes of the said Act. As per Section 18 of the
Highways Act, once a declaration under Section 18(1) is issued, the
subject land vests absolutely in the State Government, free from all
encumbrances, as per sub-section (2) thereof. Such notification
issued in the present case, pertaining to the lands located in Taluka
Shahpur, District Thane, concerning the present writ petitions, was
never challenged by the petitioners. Instead, they opted for
acquisition of their lands and determination of compensation for the
same by agreement with the respondent – State Government. Thus,
in the present cases, Section 19-B(2) of the Highways Act was taken
21/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
recourse to and agreements were executed between the petitioners
and the Land Acquisition Officer of the State, for acquisition of land
and computation as well as payment of compensation.
55. It is undisputed that in terms of the policy of the respondent –
State, upon such acquisition and payment of compensation by way of
agreement, additional 25% amount was added to the quantum of
compensation and disbursed to the petitioners. The petitioners have
not raised any grievance about the computation of quantum of
compensation, as per the said agreements. It is also undisputed that
simultaneous with the execution of the agreements and disbursal of
compensation to the petitioners, possession was delivered of the
entire pieces of land that were subject matter of the notifications for
acquisition. The said agreements were executed in these cases in
August 2019 and August 2020. The petitioners did not raise any
claim for considerable period of time. It was only when the power of
attorney and the assignee came into the picture, that demands were
made on behalf of the petitioners for compensation pertaining to the
lands covered under internal roads and open spaces. These demands
were raised for the first time about 4 to 5 years after the possession
of the entire lands was handed over by the petitioners and the
compensation amounts, as per the agreements, had been disbursed.
56. Although, in the writ petitions, copies of certain letters have
been placed on record, wherein the petitioners purportedly made
such a demand, in some cases, there is no date on the said letters
and no acknowledgement from the office of any of the respondents
about receipt of the same. In other cases, such letters were
purportedly sent few days before filing of the writ petitions.
22/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
57. In Writ Petition Nos. 11696 of 2023 and 1614 of 2026, where
the power of attorney holder or assignee is not directly in picture, it
is found that one Rajesh Vanjarani is one of the witnesses to the
subject agreements. This person was also an ex-partner, like the said
power of attorney Nikhil Radheshyam Agrawal, of a partnership firm
named North N South Developers LLP. This firm had filed Writ
Petition No. 2375 of 2021, concerning another piece of land, which
was subject matter of acquisition under the Highways Act, for the
said project, raising similar contentions. In the said writ petition also
the original owner had sought to rely upon hand-written portion in
the agreement and thereupon, a withdrawal letter was placed on
record. In this situation, the aforesaid firm withdrew the writ
petition, as per order dated 29.03.2021 passed by this Court.
58. The respondent – MSRDC has specifically placed these facts on
record, to contend that such identical pleadings were raised by the
said partnership firm, but the writ petition was withdrawn.
Thereafter, the power of attorney holder and the witness to the said
agreement, both being ex-partners of the said firm, had caused the
aforesaid writ petitions to be filed.
59. The respondent – MSRDC has also specifically stated in the
reply affidavit filed in Writ Petition 11696 of 2023, that the original
owner of the subject land was Radheshyam Agrawal i.e. the father of
the Nikhil Radheshyam Agrawal and the order permitting non-
agricultural use and layout formation passed in the year 2010,
identified the said Radheshyam Agrawal as the owner of the land.
These facts have not been denied by the petitioners and/or the
power of attorney holder, at any stage, in these proceedings.
23/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
60. It is also a matter of record that Writ petition No. 16450 of
2024 has been filed by the said Nikhil Radheshyam Agrawal as
power of attorney holder of petitioner - Prashant Nivrutti Khedkar.
Writ Petition Nos. 15256 of 2025 and 15265 of 2025 have been filed
by assignees. The original land owners are not even parties to the
said two writ petitions. It is also a matter of record that the
registered deed of assignment cum transfer deed dated 24.07.2025
was executed in favour of the petitioners in the said two writ
petitions i.e. M/s. Shubharambh Properties LLP, much after execuion
of agreements for acquisition of said land on 23.08.2019. It is also an
admitted position that the Deputy Collector and Administrator of
respondent – MSRDC reported the matter to the Police about illegal
execution of the assignment deed in the aforesaid manner, after the
lands had absolutely vested in the State Government and possession
of which was already handed over in the year 2019, on the basis of
which the aforesaid FIR was registered against the original land
owners, the partners of the petitioner – M/s. Shubharambh
Properties LLP and the Sub-Registrar. The FIR was registered on
12.03.2026.
61. The aforesaid are undisputed facts, coupled with the
fundamentally defective pleadings in Writ Petition No. 16450 of
2024, wherein statements of facts have been made by the power of
attorney holder that were in the personal knowledge of only the
petitioner - Prashant Nivrutti Khedkar. This Court finds substance in
the contention of the respondents that the present petitions have not
been filed to air a genuine grievance of land owners/farmers and
that the petitions have been orchestrated by individuals and entities
involved in the business of land deals.
24/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
62. The details stated on behalf of the respondent – MSRDC in the
affidavit in reply filed in Writ Petition No. 16450 of 2024, with
regard to the number of matters in which the said Nikhil
Radheshyam Agrawal had obtained power of attorney from original
land owners and thereupon, instituted litigation, much after the
agreements were executed, compensation was disbursed and
possession of the lands was handed over, demonstrates lack of bona
fide in filing of these writ petitions.
63. When Writ Petition Nos. 15256 of 2025 and 15265 of 2025
were taken up for hearing, interim applications were filed at a
belated stage on behalf of the petitioner – M/s. Shubharambh
Properties LLP to add the original land owners as co-petitioners in
the said writ petitions. The respondents filed their reply affidavits in
the said applications, vehemently opposing the prayer made in the
applications, on the ground that a fundamental defect in the frame of
the petition was sought to be rectified by belatedly filing the said
applications.
64. We have perused the contents of the said applications and we
find substance in the objection raised on behalf of the respondents.
Copy of the FIR registered in the matter is on record. The subject
lands stood vested in the respondent – State upon issuance of
declaration dated 05.11.2018, under Section 18(1) of the Highways
Act and therefore, execution of assignment deed dated 24.07.2025
by the original land owners, is itself suspect. When the land had
already vested by operation of law in favour of the State Government
in the year 2018 itself, there was no question of execution of the
assignment deed in favour of petitioner M/s. Shubharambh
Properties LLP. The belated attempt on the part of the said petitioner,
25/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
to add the original land owners as parties, cannot be permitted.
Hence, Interim Application (Stamp) No. 11946 of 2026 in Writ
Petition No. 15256 of 2025 and Interim Application (Stamp) No.
11950 of 2026 in Writ Petition No. 15265 of 2025, are dismissed.
65. The writ petitions could have been dismissed only on the basis
of the aforesaid facts noted by this Court hereinabove, which indicate
that the writ petitions have not been filed bona fide by the original
land owners and they have been orchestrated by the power of
attorney holder and assignee and that too after 4 to 5 years of
completion of acquisition by way of agreements and possession of
entire land being handed over to the respondents. But, this Court is
considering the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and
those raised by the respondents, while opposing the prayers made in
the writ petitions.
66. The petitioners contend that the contents of the agreement are
limited to areas of lands specifically stated in the agreement, without
any reference to the areas of lands covered under internal roads and
common spaces of the layouts. On this basis, it is contended that the
quantum of compensation agreed upon between the parties to the
agreements, was necessarily limited to the areas of lands mentioned
in the agreements. On this basis, it was contended that the
petitioners are entitled to pursue their case for computation and
payment of compensation for remaining portions of the lands that
were notified for acquisition, which were covered under internal
roads and open spaces.
67. The petitioners relied upon the orders, whereby conversion to
non-agricultural use of the lands was permitted. By placing reliance
26/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
upon the line of judgments of the Supreme Court, rendered in the
case of Pt. Chet Ram Vashist (dead) by LRS vs. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, (1995) 1 SCC 47, it was contended that the
nominal compensation of ₹ 1 for internal roads and open spaces in
the layouts for handing over the same, was illusory. Reliance was also
placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata
Municipal Corporation and another vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others
(supra), to claim violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of
India.
68. In the first place, there is no challenge to the provisions on the
basis of which the orders were passed regarding non-agricultural
permission granted to the original owner. Secondly, the respondents
have referred to the relevant DC Regulations, wherein no
compensation is stipulated for handing over of areas of land covered
under internal roads and open spaces, when called upon by the
authority. There is no challenge to the DC Regulations also. In this
context, we find that reliance placed on the recent judgment of this
Court in the case of Pune Ex-servicemen Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. vs. The Municipal Corporation of City of Pune and others
(supra), is also misplaced, simply for the reason that in the said case,
the concerned Development Control Rule of the Corporation was
found to be ultra vires the parent Act itself, as the said Rule was
framed by relying upon provisions that had nothing to do with open
spaces. Therefore, reference to the said line of the judgments, does
not take the case of the petitioners any further and the contentions
raised in that context, are rejected.
69. A perusal of the agreements in these cases shows that specific
clauses in the said agreements referred to acquisition by agreement,
27/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
under Section 19-B(2) of the Highways Act and the deliberations and
decisions of the District Level Committee in respect of the subject
lands. These decisions specifically recorded that no compensation
was to be paid for lands covered under internal roads and open
spaces in the layouts of the lands notified for acquisition. The
relevant clauses of the agreements show that these decisions of the
District Level Committee were specifically relied upon and the land
owners i.e. the petitioners in these petitions specifically agreed to
accept the said decisions of the District Level Committee finally
without any demur, as the basis for determination and payment of
quantum of compensation in lieu of acquisition of the lands. The
agreements also record that with regard to the said decisions, certain
issues were raised by the land owners/petitioners. They were
considered and dealt with and the parties agreed for payment of
additional 25% amount to satisfy such concerns expressed by the
land owners/petitioners. They also agreed to hand over peaceful and
vacant possession of the subject lands, upon receiving the quantum
of compensation, as recorded in the said agreements. Admittedly,
possession was simultaneously handed over to the respondent
authorities in the years 2019/2020.
70. We are of the opinion that the contents of the decisions of the
District Level Committee, particularly the fact that no compensation
was offered for lands covered under internal roads and open spaces,
were very much part of the agreements executed between the
petitioners and the Land Acquisition Officer, thereby indicating that
subsequently, the petitioners cannot be permitted to wriggle out of
the basis of determination and payment of compensation, as per the
said Agreements. Much emphasis was placed on behalf of the
petitioners on the areas of lands mentioned in the agreements for
28/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
which the amount of compensation was recorded.
71. An attempt was sought to be made to claim that since lesser
areas were mentioned in the agreements, the said agreements
pertained only to such reduced areas of lands and that the remaining
portions from the areas notified for acquisition, were required to be
taken into account for determination of compensation as per the
provisions of the Highways Act and the Act of 2013. The
fundamental fallacy in the said submission is that it ignores the fact
that the petitioners chose the path of acquisition of the notified lands
by consent and agreement, as per Section 19-B (2) of the Highways
Act and not through the route of compulsory acquisition, as per
Section 19-B (3) thereof. The offer made by the respondent – Land
Acquisition Officer to the petitioners was on the basis of the decisions
of the District Level Committee, which offered monetary
compensation for land not covered under internal roads and open
spaces, with no compensation offered for the remaining land that
was covered under the internal roads and open spaces. It is this offer
which was accepted by the petitioners voluntarily and hence,
monetary compensation recorded in the agreements referred only to
such areas of lands, as indicated in the decisions of the District Level
Committee.
72. The remaining areas of lands, for which no compensation was
offered, were not specifically mentioned in the agreements. The
petitioners accepted the said offers, resulting in execution of the said
agreements in May 2019 and May 2020. They accepted the monetary
compensation, which included additional 25% amount, since
acquisition was by consent and they simultaneously handed over
possession of the entire lands notified for acquisition in the years
29/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
2019 and 2020.
73. It is a settled position of law that when claimants / landowners
give consent for acquisition of their lands and the quantum of
compensation is determined on the basis of agreements executed
with the acquiring authorities, the quantum of compensation agreed
upon between the parties is treated as just compensation, permitting
no addition or substitution whatsoever. In the context of Section
11(2) of the LA Act, which pertains to acquisition by way of
agreement, the Supreme Court, in the case of Ranveer Singh Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra), observed as follows:
“14. This sub-section (2) of Section 11 begins with a non
obstante clause which makes it free of the
requirements of sub-section (1) if all the persons
interested in the land agree in writing as to what
matters should be included in the award of the
Collector. Thereupon the Collector is competent to
make an award as per agreement without making
further enquiry. In view of such clear provision that
permits agreement to determine all the matters to
be included in the award, all the inclusions and
omissions in the consent award must be treated as
based upon agreement of the parties and the final
amount determined by way of agreement must be
taken as a completely just compensation inclusive of
the statutory interest payable to the claimant for the
land concerned at least on the date of agreement.
Since the agreed compensation amount is accepted
without protest with a clear stipulation not to claim
any additional amount, it has to be deemed that the
compensation reflected in the consent award has
taken into account all relevant factors including
interest till the date of agreement. Moreover, the
right to seek reference for enhancement itself gets
lost by accepting the compensation without protest
especially when there is an agreement that the
landowner shall not claim any amount in addition
to the amount agreed upon as compensation and
shall accept the compensation without any protest.
30/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
In such circumstances agreed amount has to be
treated as a just compensation permitting no
addition or substitution whatsoever. In other words,
not only the remedy under the Act of seeking
enhancement is lost but the substantive cause of
action also vanishes when the landowner agrees for
a consent award and the amount of compensation is
accepted without any protest.”
74. Applying the said position of law to the facts of the present
case, we find that the quantum of compensation agreed between the
parties, in terms of the said agreements, has to be treated as just
compensation. No change can be made therein and that too, at the
behest of power of attorney holders / assignees, who appear to have
orchestrated and filed the petitions about 4 to 5 years after the
agreements were executed, the agreed compensation was disbursed
to the original landowners and simultaneously possession of the
subject lands was also handed over.
75. In the face of such admitted position on facts, we find no
substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that
since the entire pieces of lands notified for acquisition, were not
specifically mentioned in the agreements, it could be claimed by the
petitioners that they were entitled to seek monetary compensation
for such remaining areas of lands, under the method of compulsory
acquisition, as per Section 19-B(3) of the Highways Act, read with
Act of 2013. The aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the
petitioners is rejected.
76. In this context, reliance placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India and another vs. K.
Mohandas and others (supra) on behalf of the petitioners, cannot
take their case any further. The said judgment laid down that the
31/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
true construction of a contract must depend upon the import of
words used and not upon what the parties chose to say afterwards.
We have reached the aforesaid conclusion on the contents of the
agreements, including the clauses, wherein the petitioners agreed to
the monetary compensation offered by the respondent – Land
Acquisition Officer, on the basis of the decisions of the District Level
Committee that were never challenged by the petitioners.
77. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the petitioners on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Brihanmumbai
Municipal Corporation and others vs. Vijay Nagar Apartments and
others (supra). We find the said judgment is distinguishable on facts.
In the first place, the said judgment concerned Section 126(1)(b) of
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act),
which concerned payment of compensation in the form of
Transferable Development Rights in lieu of monetary compensation.
It is relevant to note that Section 126(1)(a) of the MRTP Act
pertained to acquisition of land by agreement by payment of agreed
amount.
78. The discussion in the entire judgment does not concern Section
126(1)(a) of the MRTP Act, which concerns payment of monetary
compensation in situations where acquisition is by agreement. On
this basis, the judgment is distinguishable. The whole discussion on
unequal bargaining power in the said judgment, was in the backdrop
of the Municipal Corporation forcing down the throat of the
apartment owners, a clause that was found to be unfair and in the
teeth of the relevant statutory provision. In the present case, as noted
hereinabove, acquisition was by agreement under Section 19-B(2) of
the Highways Act and in terms of the monetary compensation
32/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
offered on the basis of the decisions of the District Level Committee,
which the petitioners accepted without demur. It is important to note
that in the present case, it is not the original owners themselves who
came forward to raise a grievance, but it is the power of attorney
holder/assignee, who have raised issues 4 to 5 years after the
acquisition was completed.
79. At this stage, it would be necessary to note that Writ Petition
No. 16450 of 2024 was filed by the power of attorney holder Nikhil
Radheshyam Agrawal and Writ Petition Nos. 15256 of 2025 and
15265 of 2025 were filed by the assignee being a partnership firm
dealing in properties. Although, Writ Petition Nos. 1614 of 2026 and
11696 of 2023 have been filed by the original owners, they have
been filed belatedly. It is already noted hereinabove that one of the
witnesses in all the agreements, including the agreement that form
subject matter of the aforesaid two writ petitions, was one Rajesh
Vanjarani, who was an ex-partner in the said firm North N South
Developers LLP, of which the said Nikhil Radheshyam Agrawal was
also a partner. Identical issues were raised in a writ petition filed by
the said firm, which was subsequently withdrawn before this Court.
While exercising writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot be oblivious to
such admitted facts, which show that the grievance now sought to be
raised on behalf of the petitioners about alleged unfair conduct on
the part of the respondents, cannot be said to be genuine.
80. The said situation is further compounded by the manner in
which the original land owners and signatories to the agreements
entered hand-written portions towards the end of all these
agreements, to claim that they were reserving their right to raise the
issue of payment of compensation for lands covered under internal
33/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
roads and open spaces. In all these cases, subsequently, these very
persons sent communications to the Land Acquisition Officer, stating
that such hand-written portions were wrongly inserted and the same
should be treated as withdrawn. This creates grave suspicion about
the bona fide of these writ petitions and it leads to the conclusion
that individuals and firms in the business of land deals, are
masquerading as vulnerable land owners allegedly taken for a ride by
the respondent authorities.
81. The petitioners also relied upon judgment of this Court in the
case of Murlidhar s/o. Rama Veer and others vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others (supra), wherein this Court set aside the
rates determined by the District Level Committee. A closer look at
the said judgment shows that it was rendered in peculiar facts. In the
said case, this Court found that while the lands of the owners
(petitioners therein), were declared to have been acquired under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act), the award was not passed for
two years and in an earlier proceeding, the acquisition had been
declared as lapsed. Thereafter, in the year 2016, the concerned
authority offered to purchase the lands of the petitioners therein by
private negotiations and an agreement was executed specifically
recording that the lands were irrigated lands and the said factor
would be considered while determining the market value.
82. In the District Level Committee meetings, the rates for market
value were determined by treating the lands as irrigated lands, but,
subsequently the Superintendent Engineer, who was himself a
member of the District Level Committee, sought a review, which was
obviously impermissible. On the basis of such unsustainable
procedure, in a subsequent meeting, the District Level Committee
34/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
revised the rates to reduce the basis of market value by treating the
lands as Jirayat non-irrigated lands. Thereupon, the petitioners
therein executed consent letters and sale deed was executed. In the
backdrop of such facts, the said writ petition was filed. In such facts,
this Court found that the respondent – State had acted in a most
unfair manner by first offering compensation to the petitioners
therein by treating their lands as irrigated lands. The District Level
Committee also determined the rates on that basis, but, subsequently
the rates were revised to bring them down by the District Level
Committee, illegally reviewing its own decision, by treating the lands
as non-irrigated lands. This Court set aside the rates subsequently
determined by the District Level Committee.
83. In the present cases, there are no such facts and therefore, the
petitioners cannot rely upon the said judgment in the case of
Murlidhar s/o. Rama Veer and others vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others (supra). In any case, there is no challenge to the decision
of the District Level Committee in the present case. On the contrary,
in the subject agreements, the petitioners/original land owners
specifically agreed to the decision of the said Committee and
accepted the monetary compensation offered on that basis, as final
and binding. Hence, there is no substance in the contentions raised
on behalf of the petitioners in these writ petitions, by placing reliance
on the said judgment.
84. We also find substance in the contentions raised on behalf of
the respondent – MSRDC with regard to the manner in which the
affidavits have been sworn in Writ Petition No. 16450 of 2024. The
power of attorney holder at places had vouched for the correctness of
the statements made on facts that were in the exclusive and personal
35/36
903_WP_1614_26 & ors.doc
knowledge of the original land owners. The power of attorney could
not have proceeded in such a manner while making statements in the
petition as well as in the rejoinder affidavit. The whole frame of the
petitions is rendered suspicious due to such defective pleadings.
85. In Writ Petition Nos. 15256 of 2025 and 15265 of 2025, the
petitioner is a firm that claims to be an assignee of the original land
owners, on the basis of assignment deed executed on 24.07.2025. On
the said date, the original land owners, who purportedly executed
the assignment deed in favour of the said petitioner, had no right in
the subject properties at all. In the light of the agreements executed
in August 2019 by the original land owners with the respondent –
Land Acquisition Officer, leading to acquisition of the lands, payment
of compensation and handing over of possession of the lands, the
entire lands vested in the State Government. It is for this reason that
the Administrator of the MSRDC caused the said FIR to be registered
against the original land owners, the partners of the said petitioner
firm and the Sub-Registrar. These admitted facts completely vitiate
the said writ petitions and for this reason also, no indulgence can be
shown to the petitioners.
86. In view of the above, this Court finds no substance in the writ
petitions and the reliefs claimed in these petitions cannot be granted.
87. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. Pending
applications are also disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya /Bipin
36/36
Checking your session…