VISHWANATH KASHINATH BHUSARE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:9418


                                                                          3-wp-1995-2026.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   WRIT PETITION NO.1995 OF 2026

             1.     Vishwanath s/o Kashinath Bhusare
                    Age: 75 years, Occu.; Agri.,

             2.     Devidas s/o Kashinath Bhusare
                    Age: 80 years, Occu.: Agri.,
                    Both R/o. Mudeshwadgaon,
                    Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad                  .. Petitioners
                          Versus
             1.     The State of Maharashtra
                    Through its Principal Secretary
                    Irrigation Department
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

             2.     The Collector, Aurangabad,
                    Dist. Aurangabad.
             3.     The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                    Jayakwadi Project, Aurangabad,
                    Dist. Aurangabad.
             4.     The Executive Engineer,
                    Nandur-Madhmeshwar Irrigation
                    Division, Gangapur,
                    District Aurangabad.                            .. Respondents
                                                …
             Mr. Baliram B. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioners.
             Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.
             Mr. Akash Gade, Advocate for respondent No.4.
                                                ...

                                     CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
                                                 HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
                                       DATE : 04 MARCH 2026



                                                 [1]
                                                            3-wp-1995-2026.odt


ORDER (Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.) :-


.     This is yet another excellent example of the matters pertaining to

the land acquisition, where the State Government has acquired the land

without making payment of compensation to the affected land owners.


2.    In the present case, the land acquisition was initiated in the year

1979 and the Award was passed in the year 1983. The possession of the

land was taken in the year 1979 from the land owners. The matter was

carried in reference as the present petitioners were aggrieved by the

meager amount of compensation awarded by the Government for the

acquisition of their agricultural lands. The said reference came to be

decided on 09.12.1988, thereby deciding the reference in favour of the

present petitioners. In spite of the reference having been decided by the

competent Court and the compensation amount having been enhanced,

neither the department for which the land was acquired deposited the

compensation amount, nor did the authorities who initiated the

acquisition proceedings on behalf of the acquiring department make any

efforts to pay the awarded amount. The petitioners in the present petition

have pleaded that time and again they had approached the authorities

with a request to make payments in accordance with the reference order,

however, the record does not suggest that any efforts were taken by any

authority to abide by the orders of the Court or even the statutory Award


                                   [2]
                                                              3-wp-1995-2026.odt


that was passed. The petitioners, therefore, on 08.07.2024 again

submitted a written application requesting the authorities to pay the

compensation amount within the stipulated period along with statutory

interest in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). We have perused the orders

passed in the reference proceedings as well as the copy of Award, which

are annexed to the petition and we find that there has been complete

negligence on the part of the Government authorities to complete the

acquisition proceedings by disbursing the Award amount to the present

petitioners. Due to the negligence of the departments, it is noticed that

the initially awarded amount of Rs.9,212/- along with solatium of

Rs.1,202/- has now increased with interest to Rs.61,861/-. The

Government will therefore have to bear the interest component required

to be paid to the petitioners. Merely because of the sheer negligence on

the part of its officers, the interest amount will ultimately be borne by the

public State Exchequer. We have already dealt with this situation in Writ

Petition No.13381 of 2025 decided on 17.02.2026, however, the

implementation of that judgment is still awaited.


2.    Learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, upon

instructions from the authorities, makes a statement that the amount


                                     [3]
                                                             3-wp-1995-2026.odt


submitted to the Court by way of fresh calculations till date i.e.,

Rs.61,861/-, including the interest component, will be paid to the

petitioners. The said statement is accepted as an undertaking. The

respondent authorities shall, without fail, comply with the said

statement, irrespective of whether the amount has been deposited with

the acquiring department or not.


3.    Learned Advocate for respondent No.4 is also present and assures

this Court that the amount of compensation along with the interest

component as recorded above and submitted to this Court will be

deposited with the office of respondent No.3 within a period of one week

from today. The assurance is accepted as a statement and undertaking to

this Court on behalf of respondent No.4.


4.    Now, the issue which requires to be taken into consideration is that

the authorities, who have shown their negligence towards the statutory

proceedings, which are required to be completed within the stipulated

period, have failed to do so and, therefore, this Court cannot shut their

eyes for causing hardships to the persons like petitioners merely because

the authorities have failed to discharge their duties. The authorities have

also submitted an explanation to the office of Government Pleader

regarding the steps taken after the petitioners’ representation dated

25.07.2024 was received by their office. It is very unfortunate to note


                                    [4]
                                                             3-wp-1995-2026.odt


that in the explanation the entire blame and burden has been placed

upon one deceased employee stating that the said employee neither acted

upon the representation, nor forwarded the same to the concerned desk.

This is truly unfortunate that the entire office of respondent No.3 was

relying solely on a single person for its functioning. We do not accept this

explanation and reject the same. We, therefore, think it appropriate that

in the present case, the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Vaijapur,

shall make a payment of costs of Rs.30,000/- to petitioner No.1 and

respondent No.4 shall make a payment of costs of Rs.30,000/- to

petitioner No.2. The amount of costs shall be submitted to this Court by

way of a cheque or demand draft in the name of the petitioners within a

period of two weeks from today.


5.    The compliance of payment of costs shall be submitted to this

Court on 23.03.2026.


6.    In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.


7.    List the matter for compliance on 23.03.2026.



[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ]                   [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
       JUDGE                                        JUDGE

scm




                                    [5]