Bombay High Court
KUNDLIK BALU GHUREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is dismissed without adjudicating the merits, with the petitioner's rights and contentions expressly kept open.
Summary
The petitioner, Kundlik Balu Ghure, claimed to be a project‑affected person entitled to alternate land after his lands were acquired in 2009. He argued that a 1995 partition deed between his father and himself made him eligible for alternate land, despite the State's position that his father had already been allotted land. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Government, which the Court directed to be considered within four weeks. The State later produced an order dated 25 September 2025 deciding the representation in the petitioner's favour, leading the Court to dismiss the writ petition without expressing any view on the merits, while keeping the petitioner's rights open. The Court therefore dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to alternate land as a project‑affected person under the land acquisition provisions.
- Whether the High Court can adjudicate factual disputes regarding the partition deed in a writ petition.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- project affected person
- alternate land
- writ petition
- representation
- jurisdiction
Judgment
8 wp 2887-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2887 OF 2026
Kundlik Balu Ghure. ...Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Yuvraj Gharal for the Petitioner.
Mr. Siddheshwar B.Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : Milind N. Jadhav &
Nandesh S. Deshpande , JJ.
Date : July 27, 2026.
P. C. :
1. Petitioner before us claims to be a project afected person.
According to the Petitioner, his lands were acquired in the year 2009
and the assertions of Petitioner seeking alternate lands have been
refuted by the Government on the ground that Petitioner’s father was
already allotted lands. However, the Petitioner’s contention is that
there was a partition-deed efected between his father and himself as
also other family members, way back in the year 1995. The Petitioner
claims that in that view of the matter, the Petitioner is also entitled to
alternate land as a project afected person.
2. Assertions of the Petitioner having been denied by the State
Government, all are disputed questions of facts upon which we cannot
Patil-SR 1 of 2
8 wp 2887-26.doc
embark into an enquiry in our writ jurisdiction.
3. The Petitioner has addressed a representation to the
Government, copy of which is appended at Page No.62 to the petition.
We direct the Government to consider the said representation in
accordance with law and determine the same, if already not decided,
within a period of four weeks from today. We express no opinion on the
entitlement and right of the Petitioner for the alternate land. All
contentions of the Petitioner are kept open.
4. At this stage, after the order was dictated, Mr. Kalel, learned AGP
draws our attention to the order dated 25 th September 2025 which in
fact decides the representation / proposal of the Petitioner. In that
view of the matter, the petition stands dismissed. We direct that all
rights and contentions of the Petitioner, as available to the Petitioner in
law, are expressly kept open. Without this Court expressing anything on
merits of the matter, the petition is dismissed.
[Nandesh S. Deshpande J.] [Milind N. Jadhav, J.]
Patil-SR 2 of 2
Checking your session…