Bombay High Court
DATTATREY KANU PATILversusTHE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER PANVEL AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is disposed, the interim stay is vacated, and the acquisition may proceed, with any compensation dispute for the 15 gunthas to be referred to the appropriate court under Section 19‑C(4).
Summary
The petitioner, Dattatrey Kanu Patil, challenged a Sub‑divisional Officer's order rejecting his objection to the disbursal of compensation for 15 gunthas of land slated for acquisition under the Virar‑Alibaug Multimodal Corridor project. The objection was raised under Section 19‑B(6) of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955, but the SDO noted that no award had been passed and no funds were available. The petitioner also claimed statutory tenancy of the land under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, a claim previously rejected by the Tahsildar and the Mamlatdar's Court, and an appeal dismissed for non‑prosecution. The Court held that the dispute was premature, limited to the 15 gunthas, and that acquisition of the remaining 41.5 gunthas could proceed without injunction. Accordingly, the interim stay was vacated, the writ petition disposed, and the SDO directed to continue acquisition and, if necessary, refer the compensation dispute for the 15 gunthas to the appropriate court under Section 19‑C(4).
Issues considered
- The legality of rejecting the petitioner's objection to compensation under Section 19‑B(6) of the Maharashtra Highways Act before an award is made.
- Whether the petitioner's claim of statutory tenancy under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, gives him a right to restrain the acquisition process.
- Whether the court should maintain the interim stay on the acquisition proceedings.
- Whether the dispute over compensation for the 15 gunthas should be referred to a civil court under Section 19‑C(4) of the Highways Act.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 — s. 19-B(6), 19-C(4)
- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 — s. 70B, 74
- Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- statutory tenant
- Maharashtra Highways Act
- premature dispute
- interim order
- Section 19-C(4)
- Maharashtra Tenancy Act
Judgment
920_WP_381_25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 381 OF 2025
Dattatrey Kanu Patil … Petitioner
vs.
The Sub-divisional Officer, Panvel and others … Respondents
Ms. Pooja Patil, AGP for respondents – State authorities.
Mr. Saurabh Butala a/w. Ms. Harshada Shrikhande, i/b. Mr. Suyash Salve
for respondent No.2.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 01st OCTOBER, 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dated
04.03.2024 passed by respondent No.1 – Sub-divisional officer,
Panvel (SDO), whereby an objection raised by the petitioner, as
regards disbursal of compensation, with regard to 15 gunthas of land
in Survey No.76/5A, Village Chikhale, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad,
has been rejected.
3. The respondent – State authorities indicated their intention to
acquire about 55 gunthas of land from the said survey number,
including the said 15 gunthas with which the petitioner is concerned.
The objection, which was rejected by the impugned order, was raised
by the petitioner in response to a notice dated 23.08.2023 by
respondent No.1 – SDO under Section 19-B(6) of Maharashtra
Digitally signed
by PRIYA
PRIYA KAMBLI
Date:
KAMBLI 2026.10.01
18:54:15
+0530
1/6
920_WP_381_25.doc
Highways Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Highways Act). It
is to be noted that the acquisition proceeding is yet to commence,
which would ultimately culminate in land acquisition award
determining the quantum of compensation for land in the aforesaid
survey number.
4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.1 –
SDO has referred to proceedings initiated by the petitioner under the
provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1948), for being declared
a statutory tenant. Upon tracing the fate of the said proceeding and
upon taking note of the fact that the name of respondent No.2 is
recorded in 7/12 extract i.e. the revenue record, the said respondent
proceeded to reject the objection.
5. A Division Bench of this Court, while issuing notice in the
present petition on 28.03.2025, granted an interim direction to
respondent No.1 – SDO not to disburse compensation amount to any
of the parties until further orders.
6. The respondents appeared in the matter and reply affidavits
were filed. The writ petition was taken up for consideration, when it
came to light that as on today, the acquisition is yet to be undertaken
to culminate into a land acquisition award, leading to determination
of compensation. In that sense, it could be said that the dispute being
raised, is premature.
7. Nonetheless, in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit-in-reply filed
on behalf of respondent No.1 – SDO, following statements are made:
2/6
920_WP_381_25.doc
‘4. I say that the suit land has been acquired for the
Virar-Alibaug Multimodal Corridor. Mr. Pramod
Hansraj Gandhi filed an application for
disbursement of the compensation amount in his
favour. It is to be noted that Respondent No.1 has
not passed any award in respect of the suit land.
Furthermore, the compensation amount has not yet
been released by Respondent No.1 to any person, as
Respondent No.1 has not received funds from the
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation
for disbursement to the beneficiaries. The
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation
is not made party to this Petition. Respondent No.1
is ready to refer apportionment dispute to principle
court of original civil jurisdiction in terms of section
19 c (4) of Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955.’
8. The above-quoted portion clearly shows that upon the occasion
arising for disbursal of compensation, respondent No.1 – SDO has
shown readiness to refer the dispute under Section 19-C(4) of the
Highways Act, to the Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction. We
could have disposed of the writ petition only on the aforesaid
statement, but for the fact that the learned counsel for respondent
No.2 submits that any observation on the basis of the aforesaid
statement of respondent No.1 – SDO, should not become a fait
accompli for respondent No.2. It is submitted that respondent No.2 is
entitled to question the referral of dispute sought to be raised by the
petitioner under Section 19-C(4) of the Highways Act.
9. In that context, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is at
pains to point out that as on today, the petitioner has not been able
to establish his claim with regard to aforesaid 15 gunthas of land for
being statutory tenant. Attention of this Court is invited to an order
dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Tahsildar, Panvel, whereby an
application under Section 70B of the Act of 1948, has been rejected.
It is further brought to the notice of this Court that a challenge raised
3/6
920_WP_381_25.doc
thereto under the provisions of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906,
stood rejected on 12.07.2022, inter alia, on the ground that such
challenge raised under the said Act, was not maintainable.
10. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 74 of
the Act of 1948 in the year 2024. It is brought to our notice that by
an order dated 26.12.2025, the said appeal was dismissed for non-
prosecution. On this basis, it is submitted that there is not even a
semblance of right in the petitioner to raise dispute and therefore,
this Court may take into consideration the said admitted position on
facts, before disposing of the present petition. The learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to file an
application before the SDO for restoration of appeal.
11. The learned AGP has invited attention of this Court to the
provisions of the Highways Act, to contend that it was only in
pursuance of the notice issued under Section 19-B(6) of the said Act,
that the petitioner submitted the objection, which was eventually
dismissed by the impugned order. By relying upon the above-quoted
paragraph No.4 of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent
No.1 – SDO, it was submitted that the writ petition can be disposed
of, as the said respondent has already undertaken to refer the matter
under Section 19-C(4) of the Highways Act, in the event a dispute
arises upon determination of quantum of compensation.
12. Upon perusal of the documents and material on record and
after considering the rival submissions, we find that the dispute, if at
all raised at the behest of the petitioner, is restricted to 15 gunthas of
land in Survey No.76/5A of Village Chikhale, Taluka Panvel, District
Raigad. As regards the balance 41.5 gunthas of land, there is no
4/6
920_WP_381_25.doc
dispute at all. We further find that as on today, the claim raised by
the petitioner of being a statutory tenant in 15 gunthas of the said
land, is yet to be recognized as per law. In such a situation, the
process of acquisition of land, determination of compensation and
disbursal thereof, need not be interdicted, by keeping the present
petition pending before this Court.
13. The interim order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court has resulted in the acquisition proceeding itself
coming to a standstill. This cannot be countenanced and therefore,
the writ petition can be disposed of by issuing appropriate directions.
14. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:
(a) The acquisition of subject land can proceed in accordance with
law under the provisions of the Highways Act, as indicated by
respondent No.1 – SDO, while issuing notice under Section
19-B(6) of the said Act;
(b) the process of acquisition, determination of compensation and
passing of award shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with
law;
(c) it is recorded as a fact, which respondent No.1 – SDO shall take
into account, that there is no dispute at all with regard to 41.5
gunthas of land in Survey No.76/5A, Village Chikhale, Taluka
Panvel, District Raigad and that the petitioner has restricted his
claim to only 15 gunthas from the said survey number;
(d) respondent No.1 – SDO shall proceed with the acquisition
proceeding and upon passing of award and determination of
compensation, the said respondent shall proceed further strictly
in accordance with law, as regards the question of disbursal of
compensation;
5/6
920_WP_381_25.doc
(e) if at all respondent No.1 – SDO reaches a conclusion that insofar
as 15 gunthas of land, in respect of which the petitioner is
raising objection, is to be referred to the competent Court, as
per Section 19-C(4) of the Highways Act, it would be open for
respondent No.2 to challenge such a decision in accordance
with law and this Court is not expressing any opinion in that
regard;
(f) in the light of the observations made hereinabove, if at all a
situation arises where the petitioner raises a dispute restricted
to 15 gunthas of the said land, respondent No.1 shall proceed
strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by the
impugned order dated 04.03.2024.
15. It is clarified that the order passed in this petition will not
come in the way of acquisition of the aforesaid 41.5 gunthas of land
by consent.
16. Interim order is vacated.
17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya Kambli
6/6
Checking your session…