Bombay High Court
RAJENDRA GAJANAN PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PUBLIC WORK DEPT. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The writ petition is allowed; respondents must acquire the land, compute and pay compensation within six months.
Summary
The petitioner claimed that the State, through the Public Works Department, took possession of his land in 2010 for a road‑widening project and, despite issuing notices in 2011 and 2013, failed to pay any compensation. He invoked Article 300A of the Constitution and sought acquisition, computation and payment of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, along with damages. The respondents admitted the possession, acknowledged that compensation had not been paid, and stated they were ready to pay, but pointed to a terminated contract with a private contractor (Respondent No.7). The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent that the right to property remains a constitutional and human right, held that the petition deserved relief. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to complete acquisition and pay compensation within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether the State's taking of possession of the petitioner's land without payment of compensation violates Article 300A of the Constitution.
- Whether the petition under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act is maintainable despite the involvement of a private contractor.
- Whether the respondents are liable to acquire the land and pay compensation as directed by the Court.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Right to property
- Article 300A
- Land acquisition
- Compensation
- Writ petition
- Public Works Department
- Contract breach
Judgment
20_WP_5637_21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5637 OF 2021
Rajendra Gajanan Patil … Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Public Works Department & others … Respondents
Mr. Anilkumar K. Patil a/w. Mr. Laxmikant Patil and Mr. Digvijay Patil for
petitioner.
Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 6 – State authorities.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 27th JULY, 2026
P.C. :
. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondents in
taking possession of the subject land of petitioner located in Gat
No.86, Village Kalamkhand, Taluka Wada, District Palghar, in the
year 2010 for widening of an existing road. It is the case of the
petitioner that despite possession having been taken as far back as in
the year 2010 and notices having been issued in the year 2011,
offering compensation by negotiation and agreement, no further
steps were taken by the respondents to pay just, fair and reasonable
compensation to the petitioner.
2. It is submitted that therefore, this is a case of violation of the
petitioner’s right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution
of India. In that context, the petitioner seeks direction against the
respondents to take steps for acquisition of the subject land,
computation of compensation and payment thereof, under the
provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Digitally signed
by PRIYA
PRIYA KAMBLI
Date:
KAMBLI 2026.07.27
18:15:52
+0530
1/4
20_WP_5637_21.doc
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of
2013). The petitioner also prays for compensation and damages for
having taken illegal possession of the subject land as far back in the
year 2010.
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are represented by the learned AGP.
Reply affidavit dated 21.04.2025 has been filed on behalf of
respondent No.4. The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as
follows:
“5) I say that accordingly, the joint measurement was
conducted and its reports was prepared on
6.12.2010. As per the joint measurement report, it is
reflected that the Petitioner land bearing S.No. 86
area admeasuring 1690.00 Square Metre land is
acquired. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 4
is the copy of joint measurement report.
6) I say that since the land of Petitioner was taken into
possession for said project, public notices were
issued on 27.4.2011, 2.6.2011 and 26.2.2013 in
local newspaper and on 4.3.2014 in Sakal
newspaper. By and under the Public Notice dated
4.3.2014, the Petitioner alongwith other occupants
were informed to contact with this Respondents and
Respondent No.7 for claiming of compensation
amount. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 5
Colly. are the copies of notices dt. 27.4.2011,
2.6.2011 and 26.2.2013.
7) I say that as per the BOT agreement and work order
it was primary responsibility of the Respondent No.7
to acquire land of the Petitioner by entering into
agreement/sale deed and to pay compensation
accordingly. However, it appears from the record
that the Respondent No.7 failed to do so for the
reason best known to him.
8) I say that since the Respondent No.7 committed
breach of contract and the Work Order and failed to
2/4
20_WP_5637_21.doc
comply with the condition of repairing and
maintenance of the road, his contract is terminated
on 11.10.2019.
9) I say that as per the new G.R. dated 12.05.2015 and
30.09.2015 the Petitioner's land can be taken
through private negotiation, therefore, this
Respondent is ready and willing to pay the
compensation amount for the acquired possession of
the Petitioner's land for the said project through
private negotiation. Hereto annexed and marked as
Exhibit '6' Colly are copies of G.R., dated
12.05.2015 and 30.09.2015.
10) I say that this Respondent is reserved his right for
recovery of amount of compensation for acquisition
of Petitioner's land from the Respondent No. 7 by
adopting appropriate procedure.
11) I say that as per the Order of this Hon'ble Court
dated 09.04.2025, the present affidavit is supposed
to be filed on or before 17.04.2025, however, due to
non availability of the documents there is delay in
filing the present affidavit for which the Respondent
is sincere apology to this Hon'ble Court.”
4. A perusal of the above-quoted contents of the reply affidavit
clearly shows that while respondent No.4 was engaged for
completing the work of road-widening, the work order was
cancelled. The said fact is irrelevant for deciding the present writ
petition. What is more relevant and crucial is that respondent Nos.1
to 6 have not denied the fact that the possession was indeed taken in
the year 2010 and till date, compensation has not been paid. As a
matter of fact, the said respondents have stated in the above-quoted
portion of the affidavit that they are ready to pay compensation to
the petitioners.
5. The Supreme Court, in a number of cases, including in the case
of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another vs. Bimal Kumar Shah
3/4
20_WP_5637_21.doc
and others, (2024) 10 SCC 533, has held that although the right to
property is no longer a fundamental right, it is indeed a
constitutional and human right, which cannot be trampled upon by
the State authorities. In the present case, in the light of the admitted
position on facts that the petitioner is deprived of the said land since
the year 2010 and till date, compensation has not been paid, the writ
petition deserves to be allowed.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.
Consequently, respondent Nos.1 to 6 are directed to immediately
take steps for acquisition of the said land of the petitioner,
computation and payment of compensation in terms of the provisions
of the Act of 2013. The aforesaid entire process, including payment
of compensation shall be completed within a period of 6 months
from the date of this order.
7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya Kambli
4/4
Checking your session…