Bombay High Court
VIKAS NAVNATH MOTEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is disposed as the respondents' withdrawal of the amount with an undertaking adequately protects the petitioner's interest.
Summary
Petitioner Vikas Navnath Mote challenged a 20 April 2021 order of the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, which rejected his objection in the Jaikwadi Project, Beed. Respondents withdrew the disputed amount, but only on the condition that they file an undertaking to refund the sum with interest if the court rules against them. The bench examined the withdrawal and the undertaking, concluding that the petitioner’s interest was adequately protected. Consequently, the court found no further relief necessary. The writ petition was therefore disposed of, along with any pending civil applications.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Deputy Collector rejecting the petitioner's objection is liable to be set aside.
- Whether the withdrawal of the amount by respondents, subject to an undertaking to refund with interest, suffices to protect the petitioner's rights.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- writ petition
- withdrawal of amount
- undertaking
- interest
- High Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:6381
1 27 WP 6476-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
27 WRIT PETITION NO. 6476 OF 2021
VIKAS NAVNATH MOTE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…
Mr. Nikhilesh K. Tungar – Advocate for Petitioner
Ms. M.L. Sangit – AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, State
Mr. A.N. Nagargoje – Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 6, 14, 16, 17 and
20
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 12.02.2026
PER COURT :
1. By the present petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order
dated 20.04.2021 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition,
Jaikwadi Project, Beed, whereby the objection filed by the petitioner
came to be rejected.
2. Learned Counsel, Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, appearing for respondent
Nos. 4 to 6, 14, 16, 17 and 20, submits that during the pendency of the
present petition, the respondents have already withdrawn the amount.
3. I have perused documents on record and also gone through the
impugned order. The competent authority has protected the interest of
the petitioner by recording that the respondents are permitted to
2 27 WP 6476-2021.odt
withdraw the amount subject to filing an undertaking that, in the event
the Court decides against them, they shall refund the amount along with
interest. Thus, the interest of the petitioner already stands protected.
4. In view of the fact that the respondents have withdrawn the
amount subject to such undertaking, no further orders are required to be
passed in the present petition.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
6. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
Pooja Kale/
Checking your session…