Bombay High Court

Atul Ramkru GatneversusThe State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary

Decided: 18 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court granted relief identical to that accorded in the earlier writ petitions, keeping all contentions open and disposing the petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Atul Ramkru Gatne, filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition of his private land for a highway improvement work order dated 31 October 2024. The State of Maharashtra, represented by its Additional Government Pleader, argued that the petitioner was in the same position as petitioners in earlier writ petitions (Govind Narayandas Oza v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 11199 of 2025) which had been disposed of by a Division Bench. The High Court examined the earlier order and found that the reliefs sought were identical, and therefore the same procedural stance should apply. The Court kept open all contentions regarding land acquisition, measurement, and title disputes, allowing the parties to pursue appropriate remedies, and declined to adjudicate any other substantive issues. Consequently, the petition was disposed of in the same terms as the earlier cases, with no costs awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as earlier petitioners concerning land acquisition for the highway work order.
Whether the court should keep open all contentions related to acquisition, measurement, and title disputes pending further proceedings.
Whether the petition can be disposed of by reference to the earlier Division Bench order without detailed examination of other contentions.

Subjects

land acquisition
highway improvement
writ petition
procedural law
private land
state highway

Judgment

bipin prithiani
1
4-wp-15887.25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15887 OF 2025
Atul Ramkru Gatne … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
******
Ms. N. S. Bobade for Petitioner.
Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. G. P. a/w Mrs. M. S. Bane, AGP for
Respondent-State.
Digitally signed by
BIPIN BIPIN DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER PRITHIANI
PRITHIANI Date: 2026.08.18

******
17:48:10 +0530

CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 18th AUGUST 2026
P.C. :
. On 3rd August 2026, we had passed the following order :

“1. When this Petition is called out for consideration, the
learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that a coordinate
Division Bench of this Court (G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe,
JJ.), by an order dated 3 rd November, 2025, disposed of Writ
Petitions raising identical issue concerning the same work
order. Copy of the order is tendered for our perusal.
2. Prima facie, it appears that the present Writ Petition can
also be disposed of in the light of the said order dated 3 rd
November, 2025, passed by the coordinate Division Bench of
this Court in Writ Petition No. 11199 of 2025 and other
connected Writ Petitions.
3. The learned AGP appears for Respondents No. 1 to 6.
Respondent No. 7 is the contractor who has been awarded
the work order. In that sense, Respondent No. 7 may not have
the role of a contesting Respondent as regards the specific
reliefs sought by the Petitioner in this Petition.
4. Smt. Bane, learned AGP seeks short adjournment to
take appropriate instructions in the matter.
5. In view of above, list the Petition for further
bipin prithiani
2
4-wp-15887.25.doc

consideration on 10th August, 2026 in the category of ‘fresh
matters’.”
2. The learned AGP has taken instructions from the concerned
officers of the State and it is conceded that the petitioner in the
present petition is similarly situated like the petitioners in Writ
Petition No. 11199 of 2025 (Govind Narayandas Oza vs. The
State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and connected writ petitions. The
said writ petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of this
Court (Coram: G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, JJ.) by an order
dated 3rd November 2025.

3. A perusal of the said order shows that reliefs sought in the
said writ petitions are identical to the reliefs sought by the
petitioner in the present writ petition. We find that the petitioner
in this petition is also seeking relief in the context of a very same
work order dated 31st October 2024, for improvement of State
Highway 123 passing through State Highway 160.

4. In the said order dated 3 rd November 2025, the Division
Bench of this Court considered the reply affidavit filed on behalf
of the State and disposed of the writ petitions in the following
manner :
“5. In this view of the matter, we keep open all contention
of the parties, for due procedure in law to be followed in the
event the petitioners’ private lands are to be acquired.
6. In the event of any dispute on measurement and/or
dispute on title occurs, the parties are at liberty to resort to
the appropriate remedies as may be available in law. All
contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept
open.
bipin prithiani
3
4-wp-15887.25.doc

7. We make it clear that we have not delved on any other
contentions as raised by the parties. All such contentions of
the parties in regard to utilization and acquisition of the land,
are expressly kept open.
8. The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No
costs.”
5. In view of the statement made by the learned AGP, on
instructions, that the petitioner in this petition is similarly situated
like the petitioners in the said writ petitions, we are inclined to
grant similar relief to the petitioner herein.

6. Accordingly, we keep open all contentions of the parties, for
due procedure in law to be followed in the event the petitioner’s
private lands are to be acquired.

7. In the event of any dispute on measurement and/or dispute
on title occurs, the parties are at liberty to resort to the
appropriate remedies as may be available in law. All contentions of
the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.

8. We make it clear that we have not delved on any other
contentions as raised by the parties. All such contentions of the
parties in regard to utilization and acquisition of the land, are
expressly kept open.

9. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…