BABAN TUKARAM KHADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRO. DY. SECRETARY OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP.

                                                          1
                                                                                8-wp-6348-2026.doc

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 6348 OF 2026

                   Baban Tukaram Khade                                   …Petitioner
                         Versus
                   State of Maharashtra and Others                       …Respondents

                   Mr. M.D. Ramteke, for the Petitioner
                   Ms. Mrunal Tavade (through VC) i/b. Little & Co., for Respondent No.
                   2- MIDC.
                   Ms. T.N. Bhatia, AGP, for the State.
VISHAL
SUBHASH                                         CORAM      : MANISH PITALE AND
PAREKAR                                                      SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
Digitally signed
by VISHAL
                                                DATE       : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026
SUBHASH
PAREKAR            P.C. :
Date: 2026.09.02
18:41:46 +0530


                   1.          Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP

                   appearing on behalf of the respondent State authorities. The

                   respondent MIDC is also represented by counsel.


                   2.          By this petition, the petitioner is seeking a declaration that

                   acquisition pertaining to the petitioner's land in Gat No. 76,

                   admeasuring 1 Hectare 07 R at Village Vanjarwadi, Taluka Baramati,

                   District Pune, has lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair

                   Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

                   and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act, 2013). On that basis, the

                   petitioner further prays for quashing and setting aside of the land

                   acquisition award.

                   Vishal Parekar                                                                    ….1
                                        2
                                                               8-wp-6348-2026.doc


3.          One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that

acquisition pertaining to similarly situated land in adjoining Gat No.

75 was withdrawn by the respondent State authorities. In this context,

reliance is placed on notification dated 14.10.2024 issued by the

respondent State, recording that the land in Gat No. 75 was not

required for industrial area and, accordingly, the acquisition was

withdrawn. On this basis, it was submitted that the petitioner has

been discriminated against and, therefore, the present writ petition

ought to be allowed.


4.          On the other hand, the learned AGP relies upon the affidavit-in-

reply of respondent No. 4, Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati (SDO). In

the reply affidavit, a distinction is made between the acquisition

proceedings undertaken for land situated in Gat Nos. 75 and 76.

Reliance is placed on documents annexed to the reply affidavit to

contend that the argument of discrimination is not sustainable. It is

further submitted that the documents on record clearly demonstrate

that Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is not applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the present case, and there is no question of lapsing

of acquisition.


5.          We have considered the rival submissions.

Vishal Parekar                                                                      ….2
                                        3
                                                              8-wp-6348-2026.doc


6.          We find that in the reply affidavit of respondent No. 4 SDO,

sufficient details are placed on record to demonstrate how the lands

situated in Gat Nos. 75 and 76 can be said to be distinct and separate.

In paragraphs 7 to 11 of the reply affidavit, the respondent No. 4 SDO

has placed on record facts which demonstrate that the procedure for

acquisition of land in Gat No. 75 was not completed, and that during

the pendency of the acquisition proceedings, the State authorities

came to the conclusion that the land in Gat No. 75 was not required.

This was a stage where the land acquisition award was not even

passed, and in that backdrop, the aforementioned notification dated

14.10.2024 was issued withdrawing from acquisition as regards land

in Gat No. 75.


7.          As opposed to the said position regarding Gat No. 75, as regards

the land of the petitioner in Gat No. 76, the acquisition proceedings

culminated in award dated 02.03.1992. The petitioner had consented

to the acquisition, and accordingly, an agreement was executed, and

compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,450/- was paid to the petitioner.

According to the respondent State authorities, possession of the

subject land was also taken. The fact that the amount was received by

the petitioner is not denied. The respondent No. 4 SDO has placed on

Vishal Parekar                                                                     ….3
                                         4
                                                                    8-wp-6348-2026.doc


record copies of panchanama and Taba Pavti dated 02.03.1992 to

demonstrate that even possession of the subject land was taken.


8.          It appears that the petitioner claims to be in physical possession

of the subject land in Gat No. 76. This is a disputed question of fact. In

any case, since one of the requirements contemplated under Section

24(2) of the Act of 2013 pertaining to receipt of compensation is

admitted by the petitioner, this cannot be said to be a case of lapsing

of acquisition. The position of law in this regard is clarified by the

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore

Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129.

Applying the said position of law to the facts of the present case, we

are of the opinion that the case of lapsing of acquisition is not made

out by the petitioner.


9.          In view of the above, we find no merit in the present writ

petition, and accordingly, it is dismissed.


10.         Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.




                 (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)          (MANISH PITALE, J.)




Vishal Parekar                                                                           ….4