Bombay High Court

ASHRU PANDURANG DOKE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: VIBHA KANKANWADI NEERAJ P DHOTE

Holding

The court directed the petitioners to submit a detailed proposal within 15 days and ordered the respondents to decide the rental compensation claim within two months, with payment to be made within four months if entitlement is confirmed.

Summary

The petitioners sought rental compensation for land acquired by the State of Maharashtra, claiming interest at 8% per annum from the date of possession (09‑07‑1997) and 6% per annum for delayed payment, and asked the court to direct the respondents to decide their 09‑09‑2024 representations. The State argued that the representation was not addressed specifically to the appropriate respondent and therefore was not acted upon. The court noted the petitioners' remote location and lack of knowledge of procedural nuances, and held that the respondents should not be faulted for technicalities. It directed the petitioners to submit a complete proposal to the concerned respondent within 15 days, after which the respondent must decide the claim within two months. If the claim is upheld, the payment of the determined rental compensation is to be made by the fourth respondent within four months. The writ petition was consequently disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the State is liable to pay rental compensation with interest for the period from acquisition to actual payment.
Whether the representation dated 09‑09‑2024, though not addressed specifically, obliges the respondent to decide the petitioners' claim.
Whether the court can prescribe procedural steps (submission of proposal and timelines) to resolve the rental compensation claim.

Subjects

rental compensation
land acquisition
writ of mandamus
delay interest
government resolution
procedural direction
representation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:16953-DB

949.odt
(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
949 WRIT PETITION NO. 3822 OF 2026
Ashru Pandurang Doke And Others ….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
Through The Secretary And Others …..Respondents
…..
Mr. Temkar Rajendra K., Advocate for the Petitioners
Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP for the Respondents - State
…..

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATE : 18th April, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. Leave to correct.

2. The present petition has been filed for following reliefs:

“B. The respondents may please be directed to pay the
rental compensation to the petitioners from the date of
taking over possession i.e. 09.07.1997 till the date of
payment of compensation as per award made by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer on the total market value
of the acquired land of the petitioners at the rate of 8% p.a.
and thereafter, at the rate of 6% p.a. on the delayed
payment of total rental compensation arrived, by issuing
writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
directions in the nature of writ of mandamus.

C. The respondents may please directed to forthwith decide
& consider the representations dated 09.09.2024 made by
the petitioners and pay them the amount of rental
compensation in respect of the lands bearing Gat No.7
admeasuring 79 R., Gat No.14 admeasuring 14 R., Gat
No.8 admeasuring 1 H. 27 R. and Gat No.13 admeasuring
949.odt
(2)

1 H. 56 R. situated at Dokewadi, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist.
Ahmednagar in view of the Government Resolutions dated
01.12.1972 & subsequent Government Resolution dated
02.04.1979, by issuing writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of writ
of mandamus.

3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that, though

the reliefs have been sought, the Petitioners had made

representations to all the authorities on 09.09.2024, and if

directions are given to Respondent No.2 to decide the same, the

purpose of the Petitioners would suffice.

4. Learned A.G.P. waives service on behalf of Respondents

No.1 to 3 and submits that the representation dated 09.09.2024

was not addressed directly to Respondent No.2 and was not

specific, which might be the reason it has not been decided. We

will not indulge in technicalities. It can be seen that the

Petitioners are residents of a remote village and may not have

knowledge of the intricacies regarding to whom or in what

manner the representation is required to be made. The facts in

the file before Respondent No.2 would be clear, and therefore,

Respondent No.2 ought to have proceeded with taking action on

the representation. It can be seen that the copy of the

representation dated 09.09.2024 was given on the same date to

the office of respondent No.2.
949.odt
(3)

5. Be that as it may, we direct the Petitioners to submit a

complete proposal to the office of Respondent No.2 directly, within

a period of fifteen (15) days from today. On receipt of the said

proposal, Respondent No.2 shall decide the same within a period

of two (2) months thereafter.

6. In furtherance of the decision by Respondents No.2 and 3,

as the case may be, if the Petitioners are declared entitled to

receive the amount of rental compensation, the said amount as

determined by Respondents No.2 and 3 shall be paid to

Petitioners by Respondent No.4 as expeditiously as possible,

preferably within a period of four months from such decision.

7. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed

of.

[NEERAJ P. DHOTE] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE

Sameer

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…