Bombay High Court
KUMAR HARISHCHANDRA KAKDEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. ITS PRINCIPAL SEC URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioner's 6.10 gunthas is outside the acquired land and his occupation of the acquired portion is an unauthorised encroachment.
Summary
The petitioner, Kumar Harishchandra Kakde, sought a writ declaring that his 6.10 guntha parcel of Survey No. 85/C in Tulinj, Vasai was not part of a land‑acquisition proceeding and that the State could not take possession of it. The Court ordered a joint measurement, which showed that the petitioner’s 6.10 gunthas lay outside the 8,850‑square‑metre area acquired under the award dated 18 February 2016, but that he was occupying about 14.62 gunthas of land that fell within the acquired portion. The State authorities submitted affidavits confirming these findings and argued that the petitioner’s occupation of the acquired land was unauthorised and did not give rise to compensation. The Court held that the petitioner’s claim over the 6.10 gunthas was unaffected by the acquisition, while his occupation of the acquired land was an encroachment, and therefore dismissed the writ petition and ordered the acquired land to be handed over to the beneficiary Trust.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner's 6.10 guntha parcel is part of the land acquired under the 2016 award.
- Whether the State may take possession of the petitioner's land without following statutory procedure.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the portion of land he occupies within the acquired area.
- Whether a restraining order against the State's possession should be granted.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- writ petition
- joint measurement
- encroachment
- compensation
- possession
- survey
- Maharashtra
Judgment
911-WP-16846-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16846 OF 2025
Kumar Harishchandra Kakde … Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5062 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 16846 OF 2025
******
Mr. Sidheshwar N. Biradar, a/w Mr. Dinesh R. Shinde, Mr. Omhari B.
SWEETY
RAJU Fawade, for Petitioner.
BHALERAO
Digitally signed
Mr. Simil Purohit, Mr. Rubin Vakil, Mr. Arun Mehta, a/w Mr. Aniket Srivastav,
by SWEETY
RAJU
BHALERAO
Date: 2026.09.09
Mr. Nilesh Chauhan, i/b Mr. Akshar Laws for Applicant in IA/5062/2026.
17:47:34 +0530
Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. G.P., a/w Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for
Respondents/State.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 08th SEPTEMBER 2026.
PC:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a) Call for Record & Proceeding of the case, grant rule and allow
this petition.
b) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction thereby declaring that
the petition land i.e. Survey No. 85/C admeasuring 06.10 Guntha
situated at village Tulinj, Nalasopara (East), Tq. Vasai, Dist. Palghar
is not part of land acquisition proceeding initiated by Respondent
Bhalerao 1
911-WP-16846-2025.doc
No. 2 and therefore, Respondents are not entitled to take forceful
possession of the petition land without following statutory
procedure under the law;
c) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction thereby restraining
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from forcefully dispossessing the Petitioner
and his family members from the petition land i.e. Survey No. 85/C
admeasuring 06.10 Guntha situated at village Tulinj, Nalasopara
(East), Tq. Vasai, Dist. Palghar without following statutory
procedure under the law.
d) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to carry out proper measuring and
demarcation of properties acquired under the land acquisition
proceeding as directed by the Respondent No. 2 vide his letters
dated 12.2.2025 and 24.2.2025, and only thereafter proceed with
the process of taking physical possession of the acquired lands.
e) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing
Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to decide the representation of the
Petitioner submitted on 4.3.2025 and 5.3.2025 and take necessary
steps for carrying out measurement and demarcation of acquired
properties as well as petition land only thereafter continue with the
process of taking physical possession of the acquired lands.”
3. During the course of hearing of this petition and in the light of
apprehension expressed on behalf of the Petitioner, this Court on
15/07/2026 passed the following order:
“. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the respondent-State
Authorities threatening to enter upon his land on the basis of
acquisition proceeding, which according to the petitioner, has
nothing to do with the land belonging to him and his family.
2. The beneficiary of the acquisition has filed an application for
Bhalerao 2
911-WP-16846-2025.doc
intervention, as this Court by an order dated 10th December 2025,
had directed status-quo as to possession to be maintained by the
parties. The intervention Applicant also contends that the land
belonging to the petitioner does not form part of the acquired piece
of land. It is indicated that some confusion may have occurred,
which can be clarified, if a joint measurement exercise is carried
out. As a matter of fact, the petitioner himself, as per prayer clause
(d), has sought a direction to the respondents to carry out such a
joint measurement, so as to identify the exact piece of land acquired
for the benefit of the intervention Applicant, so that the land
belonging to the petitioner is left undisturbed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this
Court to a letter sent by the respondent No.2-Competent
Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), as far back as on 12 th
February 2025 to the respondent No.4-Deputy Superintendent of
Land Records (DSLR) for an immediate exercise to be carried out
for joint measurement, as there was confusion with regard to the
exact location of the land that was made subject matter of
acquisition. Despite the said letter having been sent to the
respondent No.4-DSLR, it appears that no such exercise has been
carried out till date.
4. In view of the above, the respondent No.4-DSLR is directed to
forthwith take up the exercise of survey and joint measurement of
survey No. 85 part, situated at Village Tulinj, Nalasopora (East),
Taluka Vasai, Dist. Palghar, so as to identify the piece of land that is
subject matter of acquisition, as per award dated 18th February
2016. The respondent No.4-DSLR shall issue notices to all
concerned and ensure that the aforesaid exercise is carried out and
report is prepared within three weeks from today.
5. The respondent No.4 shall place on record the said report, along
with an affidavit before this Court, within four weeks from today.
6. It is further directed that the spot inspection report, in terms of
Bhalerao 3
911-WP-16846-2025.doc
the communication dated 24th February 2025 sent by the
Competent Authority (SDO), shall also be placed on record, along
with the aforesaid affidavit, of the respondent No.4-DSLR.
7. List the petition on 18th August 2026, in the supplementary list.
8. The ad-interim order shall continue to operate till then.”
4. In pursuance thereof, the joint measurement exercise was carried out
and an affidavit in reply dated 18/08/2026 was filed on behalf of
Respondent No.4, Deputy Superintendent of Land Records (DSLR). The
measurement report and the map prepared in pursuance thereof were
annexed to the said affidavit. The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have prepared a
further affidavit in reply dated 04/09/2026, which was served upon the
parties and the same is tendered for the perusal of this Court. The same is
taken on record.
5. It is relevant to note that the beneficiary of the acquisition, i.e. a Trust
filed intervention application in this petition alleging that the Petitioner was
obstructing their possession and activity on the acquired land. It is in the
backdrop of such facts that this Court directed the aforesaid joint
measurement exercise to be undertaken by the Respondent No.4 – DSLR.
The said exercise was completed on 30/07/2026, in the presence of all
parties, including the Petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the concern of the
Petitioner with regard to perceived interference in his possession of 6.10
Bhalerao 4
911-WP-16846-2025.doc
gunthas of his land situated in village Tulinj, Nalasopora (East), Taluka Vasai,
Dist, Palghar, located in Survey No. 85/C, thereof. It was submitted that the
Respondents are not entitled to disturb the possession of the Petitioner in the
said piece of land. Therefore, appropriate directions are warranted in the
present writ petition.
7. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of Respondent- State authorities
and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant - Trust submitted
that the contents of the aforesaid affidavits dated 18/08/2026 and
04/09/2026, sufficiently clarify the position with regard to the acquired
piece of land and how it has no concern with the 6.10 gunthas of land of the
Petitioner. On the other hand, it is contended that the joint measurement
report and the map placed on record clearly indicate that the Petitioner is
claiming occupation and possession of part of the acquired land, which has
no concern with the 6.10 gunthas of land being the subject matter of the writ
petition.
8. It would be appropriate to refer to the relevant contents of the said
affidavits.
9. In the affidavit dated 18/08/2026, the Respondent No. 4 has stated as
follows:
“6. I state that the measurement has conclusively demonstrated that
the contentions raised by the opposite party regarding the location and
extent of Survey No. 85 are incorrect and contrary to the official
Bhalerao 5
911-WP-16846-2025.doc
records. I say that the official measurement has removed all doubts
regarding the identity and boundaries of the suit property and therefore
the said map deserves to be taken on record and considered while
deciding the present proceeding.
7. I say that the Government Measurement Map prepared pursuant to
Measurement No. 094011/2026 records the exact status and
bifurcation of Survey No. 85 and identifies the various portions thereof
by different colours and symbols. The said map specifically records the
area under possession of the Petitioner, the area under the possession of
BAPS Swaminarayan Trust, the portions affected by existing roads, the
portions affected by proposed roads and the balance land available in
Survey No. 85. The said official measurement, therefore, clearly
establishes the present physical position of the property.
8. I say that as per the said Government Measurement Map following
are the details in Tabular Form :
Sr. No. Particulars Area
1 Area affected by the existing road 0.01.04 H. Ares
2 Area affected by the proposed Eastern road 0.09.38 H. Ares
3 Area affected by the proposed Western road 0.04.24 H. Ares
4 Area affected by the internal road/right of way 0.03.16 H. Ares
5 Area in possession of the Petitioner outside the 0.01.88 H. Ares
acquired area
6 Area in possession of the Petitioner in Survey 0.14.62 H. Ares
No. 85 from the acquired area
7 Area shown in the possession of BAPS 0.68.17 H. Ares
Swaminarayan Trust
8 Sanjay Sahadev Singh and Ors (Constructions) 0.02.87 H. Ares
outside acquired area
9 Total Area of S. No.85 as per Survey Map 1.05.36 H. Ares
10 Total area of Survey No.85 as per 7/12 extract 1.06.30 H. Ares
9. I say that the Petitioner's land bearing Survey No. 85/C,
admeasuring 6.10 gunthas, is not included in the acquisition
proceedings and has not been acquired under the Award dated 18
February 2016. The acquisition is restricted to an area admeasuring
8,850 square metres from Survey No. 85 (Part). As per the Government
Measurement Map prepared under Measurement No. 094011/2026,
the Petitioner is presently found in possession of a total area
admeasuring 0 Hectare 16.50 Ares (1,650 square metres). However, the
entire area under his possession does not constitute his unacquired land
bearing Survey No. 85/C. Out of the area presently occupied by him, 0
Bhalerao 6
911-WP-16846-2025.doc
Hectare 14.62 Ares (1,462 square metres) falls within the boundary of
the land already acquired under the Award, whereas 0 Hectare 1.88
Ares (188 square metres) falls outside the acquired boundary.
Therefore, the map does not show that the Petitioner's land was
acquired; it shows only that a portion of the acquired land is presently
under the Petitioner's occupation. These measurements record the
existing physical possession on the site and do not determine the title
or ownership of the respective parties.
10. I say that the aforesaid particulars have been recorded by the
Government Survey Authorities after carrying out an actual field
measurement and demarcation of Survey No. 85. The said particulars
leave no ambiguity regarding the extent of land available with each
holder and the exact area lost on account of existing and proposed
roads.
11. I further state that, in compliance with paragraph 6 of the order
dated 15 July 2026, the Spot Inspection Report referred to in the
communication dated 24 February 2025 issued by the Competent
Authority (SDO) is also annexed hereto as Exhibit “B”.
12. I respectfully submit that I, the Respondent No. 4, has carried out
the exercise directed by this Hon’ble Court faithfully and impartially
and has placed the factual survey findings before this Hon’ble Court
without expressing any opinion on the rival claims of title or possession
of the parties.
13. I therefore respectfully submit that the directions contained in
the order dated 15 July 2026 stand complied with.
14. I therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take
the official measurement map on record and consider the same while
adjudicating the present dispute in the interest of justice.
15. Whatever is stated hereinabove is true and correct to my
personal knowledge and belief and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.”
10. Perusal of the above quoted portion shows that as per the joint
measurement carried out in terms of the directions issued by this Court, it is
found that 6.10 gunthas of land of the Petitioner in Survey No. 85/C is
outside the acquired piece of land. It is also recorded that on the other hand,
Bhalerao 7
911-WP-16846-2025.doc
the Petitioner is in occupation of 14.62 gunthas of land from the acquired
portion.
11. In the subsequent affidavit dated 04/09/2026, filed on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it is stated as follows:
“24. Pursuant to the order dated 15 July 2026 passed by this Hon'ble
Court, the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records carried out an official
survey and joint measurement under Measurement No. 094011/2026.
As recorded in the affidavit and Government Measurement Map filed by
the said authority, the Petitioner was found in physical possession of a
total area of approximately 16.30 gunthas (about 1,650 square metres).
Of this occupied area, approximately 14.45 gunthas falls within the
boundary of the land already acquired under the Award, while
approximately 1.85 gunthas falls outside the acquired boundary. These
measurements record the existing physical possession on the site and do
not determine or confer title or ownership.
25. The Respondents reiterate that the Petitioner's claimed land bearing
Survey No. 85/C is restricted to 6.10 gunthas and is shown in the record
as remaining outside the acquisition. The Petitioner cannot enlarge that
claim to the entire area of approximately 16.30 gunthas merely because
such larger area is presently found in his physical occupation. To the
extent that his occupation exceeds his lawful holding and overlaps the
acquired land, the same is an unauthorised occupation/encroachment
and cannot confer any right to compensation.
26. In these circumstances, no cause of action survives for a blanket
restraint against implementation of the completed acquisition.
Compensation, if otherwise legally payable, is confined strictly to land in
which the claimant establishes a lawful right, title or interest and which
is actually included in the acquisition. No compensation can be claimed
for any additional acquired area merely occupied by way of
encroachment. Since the Petitioner's claimed 6.10-guntha holding is
Bhalerao 8
911-WP-16846-2025.doc
recorded as not having been acquired, the Petitioner cannot seek
compensation for that unacquired holding in the present acquisition
proceedings.
27. In view of the above, the Petition, as framed on the allegation that
the Respondents seek to acquire or take possession of the Petitioner's
unacquired 6.10 gunthas, is misconceived. The official measurement
instead shows that the Petitioner is in physical occupation of
approximately 16.30 gunthas, including a substantial portion falling
within the acquired land. Such excess occupation neither enlarges his
title nor creates any entitlement to compensation. The Petition is
therefore liable to be dismissed, while recording that no land lawfully
belonging to the Petitioner and falling outside the acquired 8,850 square
metres shall be taken.
28. In view of the above, the petition deserves to be dismissed.”
12. The above quoted portions of both the affidavits clearly show that
even according to the Respondent State authorities, 6.10 gunthas of land of
the Petitioner in Survey No. 85/C is not affected by the acquisition at all.
Therefore, the apprehensions expressed on behalf of the Petitioner are found
to be completely baseless.
13. On the other hand, the joint measurement exercise carried out in
terms of the directions issued by this Court by Respondent No.4 - DSLR
sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner is in occupation of 14.62 gunthas
of land from the acquired portion. We find substance in the contention raised
on behalf of the Applicant - Trust that the Petitioner is in occupation of
portion of the acquired land, while his 6.10 gunthas land is totally unaffected
by the acquisition and therefore, appropriate directions ought to be issued to
Bhalerao 9
911-WP-16846-2025.doc
the Respondent State authorities to ensure that the entire acquired piece of
land is properly made over to the Applicant Trust, which is the beneficiary of
the acquisition.
14. As noted hereinabove, the Petitioner was duly present when the joint
measurement exercise was carried out in terms of the direction issued by
this Court. This is evident from the signature on the report as well as the
panchnama. It is also a matter of record that the Petitioner has not
challenged the contents of the said joint measurement report.
15. In view of the clear picture that has emerged in the light of the joint
measurement exercise carried out by Respondent No.4 as per the order dated
15/07/2026 passed by this Court, we find no substance in the writ petition.
The apprehensions of the Petitioner are sufficiently answered by the contents
of the above quoted portions of the affidavit dated 18/08/2026 and
04/09/2026 filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (State authorities).
16. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending interim
applications are disposed of.
17. Respondent State authorities are directed to take appropriate steps in
accordance with law to ensure that the entire acquired piece of land is made
over to the Applicant- Trust expeditiously. The possession is to be taken over
as per the acquired land depicted in the aforesaid joint measurement report.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Bhalerao 10
Checking your session…