Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

DHANANJAY ONKAR PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed transfer of the petitioners' applications to a competent court under Section 28‑A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with consideration of interest and set‑off.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, entertained three writ petitions filed by Devendra Walsing Patil, Dhananjay Onkar Patil and Narayan Shankar Rawate challenging orders dated 22‑08‑2019 issued by Respondent No.3 in land‑acquisition proceedings. Relying on its earlier decision in Writ Petition No.6789 of 2024, the Court held that the impugned orders were unlawful and quashed them. It directed that the petitioners' applications dated 12‑09‑2017 be restored to Respondent No.3’s file and transferred to a competent court under Section 28‑A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within 21 days. The Court further ordered that the claim for interest be considered, any amount already paid with interest be set off against the final liability, and that the competent court deliver a decision within six months. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed with the above directions.

Issues considered

  • Whether the orders dated 22‑08‑2019 passed by Respondent No.3 are valid under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
  • Whether the petitioners' applications should be transferred to a competent court under Section 28‑A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
  • Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the amount due and whether set‑off of amounts already paid is permissible.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • land acquisition
  • Section 28-A
  • quashing order
  • interest entitlement
  • set‑off
  • competent court
  • writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:45597-DB


                                              1                 8-WP-5591-24.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             8 WRIT PETITION NO. 5591 OF 2024

                                  DEVENDRA WALSING PATIL
                                           VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
                                           OTHERS
                                              ...
              Mr. Kumar Gaurav M. More, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for Respondents/State
                                              ...
                           17 WRIT PETITION NO. 6945 OF 2024

                                    DHANANJAY ONKAR PATIL
                                            VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
                                            OTHERS
                                              ...
              Mr. Kumar Gaurav M. More, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondents/State
                                              ...
                            21 WRIT PETITION NO. 7089 OF 2024

                                  NARAYAN SHANKAR RAWATE
                                             VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
                                            OTHERS
                                               ...
              Mr. Kumar Gaurav M. More, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondents/State
                                               ...

                                     CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                             ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                      DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.           Indisputably, the issue raised in these petitions is

              squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Writ

              Petition No.6789 of 2024 [Kailas Ziparu Patil (Dead) Through LRs.

              Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others].



              SVH
                                  2                   8-WP-5591-24.odt


2.          For the reasons stated in the said order, the writ

petitions are allowed with following directions:-

                               ORDER

      (a) The impugned orders passed by Respondent No.3, dated

          22/08/2019, are quashed and set aside.

      (b) The applications of these Petitioners dated 12/09/2017,

          shall stand restored to the file of Respondent No.3, who

          shall forthwith transfer the said applications to the

          Court of competent jurisdiction in view of Section 28-

          A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within a period

          of twenty one (21) days from today.

      (c) The competent Court shall follow the due procedure as

          is laid down in law while dealing with the said

          application, keeping in view the earlier judgment dated

          02/05/2017, which was delivered nine years ago.

      (d) Consequentially, we also direct that the claim of the

          Petitioners as regards the interest component as is

          permissible in law, shall also be considered by the

          Court while dealing with the applications of these

          Petitioners.

      (e) Needless to state, the amount which is already received

          by the Petitioners along with the interest component,

          may be set off against the amount which is now liable

          to be paid to the Petitioners with accrued interest.


SVH
                                3                    8-WP-5591-24.odt


      (f) Since the competent Court has already delivered the

         judgment on 02/05/2017, we would expect an early

         decision by the said Court with regard to the claim of

         the Petitioners (all legal heirs of the original Claimant)

         and preferably within a period of six months from

         today.



(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)            (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




SVH


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.