Bombay High Court
ARJUN MURLIDHAR NAVALE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHA. THR. REVENUE DEPT. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The petitioners are entitled to compensation under the proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and the respondents must compute and pay it within four months.
Summary
The petitioners, owners of land acquired for the Kukadi Dam Project, obtained a land acquisition award on 31 May 1999 but have not received any compensation despite possession being taken. They contend that, under the proviso to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, they are entitled to compensation because the award predates the Act and the compensation was never deposited. The State and the Land Acquisition Officer, through an affidavit, admitted that the acquiring body failed to deposit the compensation amount. Relying on the precedent set in Geeta Vijay Deshpande & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Court held that the proviso applies and directed the respondents to compute and pay compensation within a specified period. The writ petition was allowed, directing payment of compensation as per Sections 26‑30 of the 2013 Act within four months.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the proviso to Section 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 when the acquisition award was made before the Act and compensation was not paid.
- Whether the State and acquiring body are liable to compute and disburse compensation within a time‑bound period.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 4
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- RFCTLARR Act 2013
- Section 24(2) proviso
- Kukadi Dam Project
- writ petition
- delay in payment
Judgment
bipin prithiani
1
32-wp-6798.23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6798 OF 2023
Arjun Murlidhar Navale & Ors. … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
******
Mr. Sarthak Diwan i/by Mr. Nilesh Navale for the Petitioners.
Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4-State.
Mr. Ashish Gabhale a/w Mr. Arnav Urankar i/by Jay & Co. for
BIPIN
DHARMENDER
Digitally signed by
BIPIN DHARMENDER
PRITHIANI Respondent No.5.
PRITHIANI Date: 2026.07.28
11:48:42 +0530
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 27th JULY 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGP for
respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5
i.e. the beneficiary of the acquisition.
2. A short question arises for consideration in this petition and
according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the light of
relief granted to similarly situated land owners by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite land
acquisition proceedings having been undertaken, for the Kukadi
Dam Project, in respect of the land belonging to the petitioners in
Village Kuran, Taluka Junnar, Dist. Pune and the land acquisition
award having been passed on 31st May 1999, till date, no
bipin prithiani
2
32-wp-6798.23.doc
compensation amount was paid to any of the beneficiaries under
the said award.
4. The petitioners contend that although possession of the land
was taken, the amount of compensation was never paid to the
petitioners and therefore, by operation of proviso to Section 24(2)
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of
2013), the petitioners are entitled to payment of compensation.
5. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioners deserves to be
granted in the light of the contents of the affidavit in reply filed on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the State and the Land
Acquisition Officer. It is conceded in the said reply affidavit that
the amount of compensation could not be paid, as the acquiring
body or the beneficiary of acquisition i.e. respondent No.5 failed
to deposit the compensation amount with the Land Acquisition
Officer.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon
judgment and order of this Court passed in case of Geeta Vijay
Deshpande & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 (2)
Mh.L.J. 600, wherein relief was granted to similarly situated land
owners.
7. The learned AGP submits that the factual position has been
stated in the reply affidavit. It is further submitted that even if this
Court were to favourably consider the present writ petition, an
bipin prithiani
3
32-wp-6798.23.doc
appropriate exercise for measurement of the subject land, in the
presence of the petitioners, will have to be carried out to take
further steps in the matter. The learned counsel for respondent
Nos.5 i.e. the acquiring body agreed with the submission made by
the learned AGP.
8. Section 24 of the Act of 2013, reads as follows :
“24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall
be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.–(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of
land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894,—
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said
Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of
this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall
apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been
made, then such proceedings shall continue under the
provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act
has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),where an
award under the said section 11 has been made five years or
more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical
possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation
has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to
have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses,
shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in
accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and
compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not
been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all
beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under
section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”
bipin prithiani
4
32-wp-6798.23.doc
9. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 specifically
mandates that in the event, the compensation amount is not
deposited in respect of the majority of land holdings, in the
account of the beneficiaries, then all beneficiaries specified in the
notification for acquisition issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, shall be entitled to compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. The statutory
mandate is for depositing compensation amount in the account of
the beneficiaries concerning the majority of the land holdings. In
the present case, it is an admitted position that none of the land
owners, including the petitioners, were paid compensation and
that the amounts were not deposited in their accounts.
10. The relevant portion of the affidavit in reply dated 18 th
March 2025 filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, reads
as follows :
“3) I say that, it appears from the record that an award
under Land Acquisition Act 1894 has been passed in the year
1994 for Kukadi Dam Project whereby lands of the petitioners
from Village Kuran, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune have been
acquired. It appears from the letter dated 29/05/2014 given
by this office to executive engineer requesting them to submit
compensation amount to this office before August 2014,
otherwise the land acquisition processes will be laps in view of
new Act.
4) I say that, it appears that, inspite of above letter the
acquiring body failed to deposit the compensation amount
with this office, hence the entire matter was send back to
them by letter dated 24/05/2018. Hereto annexed and marked
as Exhibit – 1 is the copy of letter dated 24.05.2018.
5) ***********
bipin prithiani
5
32-wp-6798.23.doc
6) ***********
7) I say that, this office time to time communicated both
the offices to complete the joint measurement process and
submit report for further action. However, until today no any
correspondence or report received from both offices. After
receiving the joint measurement, this office will proceed
further.”
11. In the light of the aforementioned specific statement made in
the paragraph 4 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 and 2, it is conceded that the compensation amount was not
paid to any of the beneficiaries. Hence, proviso to Section 24(2) of
the Act of 2013 squarely applies in the facts and circumstances of
the present case. In a similar situation, in the case of Geeta Vijay
Deshpande & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra), while
granting relief to similarly situated land owners, a Division Bench
of this Court directed that respondent-State Authorities shall carry
out the exercise of computing and payment of compensation to
the land owners, as per proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of
2013, within a period of two months from the date of the order.
12. We are of the opinion that the petitioners have indeed made
out a case in their favour for allowing the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses
(b) and (c), which read as follows :
(b) to issue directions to the Respondents to complete
the entire process for payment of compensation for
acquisition of the suit properties of the Petitioners and to
disburse the amount of compensation in favour of the
bipin prithiani
6
32-wp-6798.23.doc
Petitioners in a time bound manner and in any case
within a period of two months;
(c) to direct the Respondents to pay the compensation
to the Petitioners as per the formula envisaged under
Section 26 to 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act 2013.
13. At this stage, the learned AGP submits that this Court may
consider granting further time beyond two months, in the light of
the fact that the officers of respondent-State are presently busy in
attending the situation created by the monsoon.
14. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to take
necessary steps to compute and to pay compensation to the
petitioners in terms of prayer clause (c), within a period of four
months from today.
15. This Court has granted sufficient time to the respondents
and therefore, it is expected that the respondents shall abide by
the timeline and not force the petitioners to approach this Court
invoking our contempt jurisdiction.
16. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Checking your session…