Bombay High Court
DILIP NATHU KANK AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as vague, delayed and barred by laches, and the petitioners are directed to make a representation to the Government.
Summary
The petitioners, five individuals claiming to be project‑affected persons, filed a writ petition in 2021 seeking execution of an order dated 11 August 2000 that allegedly allotted them land under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999. The petition was filed more than two decades after the original order and contained no specific relief, family relationship details, or supporting documents, rendering it vague and incomplete. The Court observed that the delay was unexplained, the petition was hit by laches, and the relief sought could not be granted in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioners to make a proper representation to the Government, which would consider any entitlement under the Act in accordance with law. The petition was dismissed, costs of ₹5,000 were imposed on the petitioners, and the accompanying interim application was also disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition seeking execution of a 2000 land‑allotment order can be entertained after a delay of over 20 years
- Whether a vague and non‑specific petition is maintainable in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court
- Whether the doctrine of laches bars the petition
- Whether the Court may direct the petitioners to approach the Government for relief instead of granting the writ
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- delay
- laches
- land allotment
- rehabilitation
- Project Affected Persons
- Section 16
- Maharashtra
- vague petition
- costs
Judgment
5-IA-2583-2023 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5107 OF 2021
Dilip Nathu Kank And Ors.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra And Ors.
ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2583 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5107 OF 2021
Shivaji Dagadu Kank
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
Dilip Nathu Kank And Ors.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra And Ors.
...
Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. Y. B. Lengare ( Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Rutik Kashid, Advocate for
the Intervenor.
Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State.
...
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, &
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 22nd JULY, 2026
P. C. :
Digitally
signed by
SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
LIYAKAT JAMADAR
JAMADAR Date:
2026.07.23
1 of 5
14:35:04
+0530
5-IA-2583-2023 (C).doc
1. Heard Ms. Mangale, learned Advocate for the Petitioners,
Mr. Lengare (Through V.C.), learned Advocate for the
Intervenor/Applicant and Mr. Mali, learned AGP for the Respondent-
State.
2. The present Petition No.5107 of 2021 is filed by the
Petitioners on 07.01.2021 seeking implementation of the order
dated 11.08.2000.
3. Petitioner No.1 was 13 years old when the said order dated
11.08.2000 was passed. A copy of the said order is claimed to be
annexed at Exhibit "F" to the Petition. The allotment order,
presumably, is not in the name of Petitioner No. 1, save and except
the surname.
4. We have reasoned with the learned Advocate, Ms. Mangale,
that the prayers in the Petition are extremely general, omnibus,
vague and insufficient. Ms. Mangale, despite repeated queries from
the Court, persisted with her submissions. Equally, while the matter
was being argued, Petitioner No.1, who was presumably present in
Court, also tried to interrupt the proceedings. We reasoned out with
Ms. Mangale and explained to her that such innocuous, incomplete,
vague and insufficient prayers, as sought in the Petition, can never
2 of 5
5-IA-2583-2023 (C).doc
be granted in our extraordinary writ jurisdiction. She refused to
listen and repeatedly argued the same issue, stating that the
allotment order had been passed under Section 16 of the
Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 in
favour of the Petitioners and it required execution by way of present
Petition now filed in 2021.
5. The delay in filing the Petition is unexplained. We do not
know whether the Petitioners before us, namely, Dilip Nathu Kank,
Alka Sanjay Sathe, Ramdas Laxman Kank, Santosh Shankar Kank
and Pandharinath Dhondiba Kank, are in any way related to
Dhondiba Madhu Kank. The name "Dhondiba" appears only in the
name of Petitioner No.5. No family tree or any other material has
been placed on record. We cannot embark upon an inquiry for all
the 5 Petitioners who have woken up from their long shumber after
almost 21 years and have filed the present Petition. Petition is
devoid of material facts. We cannot embark upon an enquiry on
facts. Petition is hit by delay and laches. What we gather from
Ms. Mangale is that Petitioners are project affected persons, who
have been given alternate lands, but those are inadequate. Order
passed in of the year 2000 in some other persons’ name. Execution
3 of 5
5-IA-2583-2023 (C).doc
is sought after 21 years without even approaching the competent
Authority.
6. We direct the Petitioners to make an appropriate
representation to the Government on the basis of the alleged order.
If any such representation is made, the Government shall deal with
the same in accordance with law with regard to any allotment to the
concerned person named in the said order and decide the same.
7. Needless to state that any representation made by the
Petitioners shall be strictly considered by the Government in
accordance with law and on the basis of the applicable legal and
statutory requirements.
8. For filing such vague and frivolous a Petition, we direct the
Petitioners to pay costs of ₹5,000/- to the “Bombay High Court
Kolhapur Bench Action Committee” within a period of two weeks
from today. The details of the Bank Account of the said Committee
are as under :
बँकेच नांव : ि कमि यल को-ऑप बँक िल. को्हापूर
खातेचे नांव : को्हापूर ि ्हा बार असोिसए न को्हापूर खंडपीठ िनधी
खाते नंबर : 009011100000175
आय एफ.सी कोड : HDFC0CTCCBK (अंडरलाईन केलेले ि'रो अंक आहे.)
ाखा : कसबा बावडा को्हापूर.
4 of 5
5-IA-2583-2023 (C).doc
9. Needless to state that we have not expressed any opinion on
the substantive rights of the Petitioners. If the Petitioners are
entitled to any additional area in rehabilitation or allotment in
terms of the Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, the
State Government shall duly consider the representation of the
Petitioners, if made, in accordance with law and determine the same
strictly in accordance with law.
10. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above directions.
11. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the Interim
Application No.2583 of 2023 does not survive and stands disposed
of accordingly.
[NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.] [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.]
Sajakali
5 of 5
Checking your session…