Bombay High Court
MARUTI LIMBAJI GOCHADE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petitions are disposed, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the interest claim under Section 80 before the Competent Authority in the pending Section 64 proceedings.
Summary
The petitioners filed two writ petitions in the Bombay High Court seeking interest payable under Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The State pointed out that the petitioners had already filed applications under Section 64 of the same Act on 12 November 2025, which were not disclosed in the writ petitions. The Court observed that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and the petitioners should approach the court with clean hands; the failure to disclose the pending Section 64 applications rendered the writ petitions inappropriate. The petitioners sought permission to withdraw the writ petitions and continue pursuing the interest claim before the Competent Authority. The Court disposed of the writ petitions, granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue the interest claim under Section 80 in the pending Section 64 proceedings and directing the Competent Authority to act on the original applications, not on the later pursis filed on 20 February 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether writ petitions seeking interest under Section 80 are maintainable when the petitioners have pending applications under Section 64 of the Act.
- Whether the petitioners' failure to disclose the pending Section 64 applications defeats the doctrine of clean hands and bars the writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the petitioners may withdraw the writ petitions and pursue the relief before the Competent Authority.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- clean hands doctrine
- Section 64
- Section 80
- land acquisition
- interest payable
- competent authority
- withdrawal of petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:17312-DB
1 915&916WP1777.2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
915 WRIT PETITION NO. 1777 OF 2026
Maruti Limbaji Gochade And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Shashikant E. Shekade - Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. A. M. Phule - AGP for the State
…
AND
933 WRIT PETITION NO. 2853 OF 2026
Vyankati Harichandra Munde
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
...
Mr. Shashikant E. Shekade - Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. S. K. Tambe - AGP for the State
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATED : 18TH APRIL, 2026
PER COURT : -
1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners in both
matters and the learned AGPs appearing for the respective respondents.
2. The learned AGPs pointed out that the Petitioners have
already approached the Competent Authority under Section 64 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the
2 915&916WP1777.2026.odt
“Act of 2013”), seeking relief similar to that prayed for in the present
petitions. The said applications were filed on 12.11.2025, however, this
fact has been suppressed in the present petitions.
3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners placed on record
copies of the pursis filed on 20.02.2026 in the said Petitions/References
under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, stating that since they have
approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions, they are not
pressing the prayer made therein regarding interest payable under
Section 80 of the Act of 2013.
4. In the present case, it is to be noted that writ jurisdiction is
discretionary, and the Petitioners ought to have approached this Court
with clean hands. There is no disclosure regarding the
Petitions/References under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 in the present
petitions, which were filed on 07.01.2026 and 16.02.2026, respectively.
It appears that the action of filing of the pursis is an afterthought.
Further, as the Petitions/References under Section 64 of the Act of 2013
will continue for other reliefs, it would be appropriate for the Petitioners
to pursue prayer clause ‘5’ in respect of interest payable under Section
80 of the Act of 2013, before the Competent Authority. We also observe
that withdrawal of the present petitions will not affect the rights of the
Petitioners, which can be said to have crystallized in view of the
interpretation of Section 80 of the Act of 2013.
3 915&916WP1777.2026.odt
5. Upon expressing disinclination to proceed with the matters,
the learned Advocate for the Petitioners seeks permission to withdraw
the petitions with liberty to pursue the said petitions/references under
Section 64 of the Act of 2013.
6. The writ petitions are disposed of, with liberty to the
Petitioners to pursue prayer clause ‘5’ in the references/petitions filed
under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, in respect of interest payable under
Section 80 of the Act of 2013, before the Competent Authority. In other
words, the Competent Authority shall not act upon the pursis filed on
20.02.2026 and shall proceed with the original petitions/references filed
under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, and dispose of the same as
expeditiously as possible.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
SG Punde
Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/04/2026 18:24:27
Checking your session…