PANDURANG GOPAL KULKARNIversusSTATE OF MAHA. THR. COLLECTOR OF SOLAPUR AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:9062-DB

                                                                  904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 14747 OF 2022

               Ramchandra Vasudeo Joshi                               ...Petitioner
                       Versus
               State Of Maharashtra And Ors                           ...Respondents
                                              WITH
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 14746 OF 2022

               Balwant Vaman Joshi                                    ...Petitioner
                       Versus
               State Of Maharashtra And Ors                           ...Respondents
                                              WITH
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 9979 OF 2025

               Balu Ambrushi Bagale                                   ...Petitioner
                       Versus
               State Of Maha. Thr. Collector Of Solapour And Ors      ...Respondents
                                              WITH
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 5346 OF 2024

               Rasul Kasim Bagwan Decd. Thr. Lhr Jabbar Rasul         ...Petitioner
               Bagwan
                       Versus
               State Of Maha. Thr. Collector Of Solapur And Ors       ...Respondents
                                              WITH
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 5867 OF 2024

               Pandurang Gopal Kulkarni                               ...Petitioner
                       Versus



               Arya Chavan                     1 of 8
                                                      904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc



State Of Maha. Thr. Collector Of Solapur And Ors          ...Respondents
                                 WITH
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 5323 OF 2024
Nishikant Madhusudhan Dixit And Ors                       ...Petitioners
          Versus
State Of Maha. Thr. Collector Solapur And Ors             ...Respondents
                                  WITH
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 9978 OF 2025
                                 (Not on Board)


Vilas Dattatray Survase And Anr.                          ...Petitioners
          Versus
State Of Maha. Thr. Collector Solapur And Ors             ...Respondents
                                 ——————
Mr. Tanaji Mhatugade, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rupesh Bobade a/w Ms. Shradha Nakadi, for the Petitioners in WP No.
9979/25, WP No. 5346/24,WP No. 5867/24, WP No. 5323/24 and WP No.
9978/25.
Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar, senior panel counsel, for the Respondent No. 3 in WP No.
14746/22 and WP No. 14747/22, for the Respondent No. 4 in WP No. 5323/24
and for the Respondent No. 5 in WP No. 9979/25, WP No. 5346/24, WP No.
5867/24 and WP No. 9978/25.
                                 ——————
                                   Coram :     SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                               NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
                                   Date      : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026
P. C. :

1.        These group of Petitions seek identical relief of direction to the

Respondents to pay the amount as determined by Awards passed under

the provisions of Section 28A(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short

“Land Acquisition Act”) in a time bound manner. Common submissions

were canvassed and the Petitions are being disposed of by this common



Arya Chavan                         2 of 8
                                                   904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc


order. The Awards under Section 28A(2) of Land Acquisition Act re-

determined the compensation on the basis of Award of the Court in

Land Acquisition Reference No. 23 of 2003 dated 18th December, 2019.

2.      For the sake of clarity, the facts of Writ Petition No. 14747 of

2022 are referred.

3.      The initial Award in respect of the subject land under Section 11

of Land Acquisition Act was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Solapur No. 2, Solapur on 19 th July, 2002, determining the compensation

in respect of compensation of Gat No. 422 (part). One Mr. Chandrakant

Ambrushi Pawar and others had filed reference under Section 18 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being LAR No. 28 of 2003, which was party

allowed enhancing compensation granted to the said Mr. Chandrakant

Ambrushi Pawar. As against the enhancement of compensation to the

said Mr. Chandrakant Pawar, an Appeal was preferred by the

Respondent No. 3 before this Court (Principal Seat), which came to be

admitted. By order dated 22nd November, 2021, this Court in the said

Appeal granted stay to the execution, subject to the condition that the

entire amount as determined by LAR No. 23 of 2003 be deposited

before the Reference Court with liberty to the original Claimant therein

to move for withdrawal of the amount of compensation, pursuant to

which the amount was deposited, the application for withdrawal was

filed before the Reference Court, and the original Claimant was


Arya Chavan                      3 of 8
                                                   904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc


permitted to withdraw the amount.

4.      The Petitioner filed an application under Section 28A of the Land

Acquisition Act seeking re-determination of compensation and the

award under Section 28A was passed on 27 th July, 2021. As there is no

Appeal/challenge to the award passed in favour of the Petitioner under

Section 28A(2), the present Petition has been filed seeking execution of

the award.

5.      Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that once the

award has been passed under Section 28A(2) of the Land Acquisition

Act, which is not the subject matter of challenge by the acquiring body,

the same is required to be implemented. Upon a query by this Court, he

submits that an award passed under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act

is not executable as a decree, by pointing out the provisions of Section

26 of the Land Acquisition Act. He would submit that even if the award

passed in LAR No. 23 of 2003 is challenged, this Court directed the

Respondents to deposit the amount in the Reference Court and

permitted the Claimant therein to file an application for withdrawal and

the amount was permitted to be withdrawn. He submits that the

present Petitioners are required to be treated similarly being identically

situated.

6.      Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3-acquiring

body would submit that the Petition is not maintainable, as the award


Arya Chavan                      4 of 8
                                                    904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc


passed under Section 28A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is a decree

within the meaning of Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is

executable.    He   submits    that   there   was   re-determination      of

compensation under Section 28A of Land Acquisition on the basis of

enhanced compensation granted to Chandrakant Pawar, which is the

subject matter of challenge before the High Court, and therefore, this

Court cannot direct the Respondents to make the payment as per the

award passed under Section 28A(2) of Land Acquisition Act.

7.      We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

8.      There is no dispute about the fact that there has been re-

determination of the amount of compensation under Section 28A of the

Land Acquisition Act in favour of the Petitioners in view of the enhanced

compensation granted in LAR No. 23 of 2003. The opposition to the

Petition is premised on the ground that the award by the Collector

under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act partakes the nature of decree

under Section 26(2) of the Land Acquisition Act which can be executed.

It may be borne in mind that writ jurisdiction is extra ordinary

jurisdiction, which is discretionary and the availability of an alternate

remedy does not bar the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is self imposed

rule of restraint that where there is an alternate remedy available, the

writ Court would usually not interfere.

9.      Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under :


Arya Chavan                       5 of 8
                                                              904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc


      26. Form of awards
      “(1) Every award under this part shall be in writing signed by the Judge, and
      shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of sub-section (1) of
      section 23, and also the amounts (if any) respectively awarded under each of
      the other clauses of the same sub-section, together with the grounds of
      awarding each of the said amounts.
      (2)Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of
      the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of section
      2, clause (2), and section 2, clause (9), respectively of the Code of Civil
      Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).”


10.     A plain reading of the said provision would indicate that only

those awards which are passed by Court is deemed to be a decree. Sub

Section (1) of Section 26 states that every award under this part shall be

in writing signed by the Judge. Section 26 is placed in Part III of Land

Acquisition Act. Similarly Section 28A also finds place in Part III of Land

Acquisition Act, however, the award under Section 28A is passed by the

Collector by re-determining the compensation in accordance with order

of Reference Court in case of identically placed land owner covered by

the same notification. Sub-Section 2 of Section 26 uses the expression

“every such award”, which is referable to Section 26(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act i.e. award passed by the Court. The Petitioners therefore

have no remedy but to approach this Court for execution of the award

passed under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act.

11.     Coming to the merits, the compensation was re-determined in

view of the enhancement granted by the Reference Court in LAR No. 23

of 2003. Being aggrieved by the enhancement in LAR No. 23 of 2003, an




Arya Chavan                             6 of 8
                                                   904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc


Appeal has been preferred by the Respondent No. 3 and by order dated

22nd November, 2021, this Court had granted stay to the execution

subject to deposit of the entire amount of compensation along with

interest accrued thereon in terms of the impugned award within a

period of ten weeks from today. As the basis for re-determination under

Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act is sub-judice in the First Appeal

proceedings before the Court, we are of the opinion, that the relief of

direction to the Respondents to make the payment as per the award

passed under Section 28A(2) dated 27th July, 2021 cannot be granted.

The Petitioners claim to enhanced compensation is dependent on the

fate of the First Appeal proceedings. However, it cannot be disputed

that the Petitioners are entitled to identical interim relief as the

Appellants in First Appeal pending before this Court.

12.     Learned counsel for the Petitioners has tendered the documents

to evidence the deposit of the amount in the Reference Court and the

order passed by the Reference Court allowing the application for

withdrawal. As there is an order of the High Court in the First Appeal

proceedings directing deposit of the amount before the Reference

Court, we are inclined to pass identical order of deposit. In the case of

First Appeal, as the proceedings arose out of Reference Court

proceedings, the Respondents were directed to deposit the amount in

the Reference Court. In present facts, the amount will have to be


Arya Chavan                     7 of 8
                                                    904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc


deposited by the Respondent No 3 in this Court to be governed by the

orders passed by this Court.

13.     In light of the discussion above, the Respondent No. 3 is directed

to deposit the entire amount of compensation alongwith the interest

accrued thereon in this Court in terms of the award passed under

Section 28A(2) of Land Acquisition Act within a period of twelve weeks

from today.

14.     It is open for the Petitioners to move an application seeking

withdrawal of the amount deposited. The Respondent No. 3 will be at

liberty to raise all contentions to oppose withdrawal of the amount, in

case, any such application is filed.

15.     The Petitions are allowed in the above terms.

16.     Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand

disposed of.




 [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]                      [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]




Arya Chavan                        8 of 8