Bombay High Court
EVITA KRISALA TOWNSHIP LLP THR. ITS AUTHO. SIG. AAKASH O. AGARWALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. GOVERNEMENT PLEADER AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the entries relating to the Kasarsai Left Canal Project are erroneous and must be deleted from the revenue records.
Summary
The petitioners, including Evita Krisala Township LLP and two individual owners, sought the deletion of entries in the revenue records (7/12 extracts) that recorded the Kasarsai Left Canal Project acquisition on their lands. The respondents, representing the State of Maharashtra, submitted affidavits stating that no steps beyond the publication of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were taken and that the lands were never actually acquired. The Court noted that the Deputy Collector had already instructed the deletion of such entries within 16 weeks and that the procedural requirements of a 2022 Government Resolution were unnecessary for correcting a record of a non‑existent acquisition. Consequently, the Court held that the entries were erroneous and ordered their deletion within six weeks. The writ petitions were allowed and the matters were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether revenue record entries reflecting an acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can remain when the acquisition was never effected.
- Whether the Court may direct deletion of such entries without complying with the procedural steps prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 18.01.2022.
- Whether a six‑week time‑frame for deletion is appropriate in the circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- revenue record correction
- mutation entry
- Kasarsai Left Canal Project
- Section 4 LA Act
- Section 6 LA Act
- Maharashtra
- High Court of Bombay
- writ petition
Judgment
1
26-WP-7070-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7070 OF 2026
Evita Krisala Township LLP …Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Others …Respondents
VISHAL
SUBHASH
PAREKAR WITH
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
PAREKAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2415 OF 2026
Date: 2026.10.07
18:12:31 +0530
Rakesh Popat Bharne ….Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Others ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2363 OF 2026
Ravindra Daulat Shitole ….Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Others ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7071 OF 2026
Evita Krisala Township LLP ….Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Others ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7186 OF 2026
Evita Krisala Township LLP ….Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Others ….Respondents
Vishal Parekar ….1
2
26-WP-7070-2026.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7236 OF 2026
Evita Krisala Township LLP ….Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Others ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7187 OF 2026
Evita Krisala Township LLP ….Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Others ….Respondents
******
Mr. Suresh Sabrad a/w. Mr. Amey Sawant, Ms. Neha Zanje, Ms.
Eshwaree Kudalkar i/b. Mr. Pratik Sabrad, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Kedar Dighe, Addl.GP for the State in WP No. 7070 of 2026.
Smt. M.S. Bane, AGP for the State in WP Nos. 2415 of 2026 and 2363
of 2026.
Smt. Tanu Bhatia, AGP, for the State in WP No. 7071 of 2026.
Smt. P.M.J. Deshpande, AGP in WP No. 7186 of 2026.
Smt. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP in WP No. 7236 of 2026.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 7th OCTOBER, 2026
PC.:
1. The petitioners in these petitions are Evita Krisala Township LLP,
Rakesh Popat Bharne and Ravindra Daulat Shitole. While five writ
petitions have been filed by the said Evita Krisala Township LLP, two
writ petitions in this group have been filed by Rakesh Bharne and
Ravindra Shitole, each.
Vishal Parekar ….2
3
26-WP-7070-2026.doc
2. The petitioners in these petitions have prayed for identical relief
of deleting entries pertaining to the Kasarsai Left Canal Project in the
revenue records (7/12 extracts) pertaining to the lands that are
subject matter of these petitions.
3. In Writ Petition Nos. 7070 of 2026 and 7236 of 2026, as per
earlier order passed by this Court, the officers pertaining to the
acquiring body or the beneficiary of the acquisition were added as
party respondents. Affidavits of service show that the said respondents
have been served. The other respondents in these petitions are State
authorities who are represented by the learned AGP.
4. It is brought to our notice that reply affidavits have been filed in
Writ Petition Nos. 7070 of 2026, 7071 of 2026, 7186 of 2026, 7187 of
2026 and 7236 of 2026.
5. In Writ Petition Nos. 2363 of 2026 and 2415 of 2026, although
reply affidavits have not been filed by the State authorities, written
instructions have been received from the Deputy Collector,
Rehabilitation, Pune to the office of the learned Government Pleader
stating that the aforesaid entries in the revenue records pertaining to
the said two petitions shall be deleted within a period of 16 weeks.
Vishal Parekar ….3
4
26-WP-7070-2026.doc
6. In Writ Petition No. 7071 of 2026, the affidavit of Respondent
Nos. 2 and 5 specifically states as follows:
7] I specifically say that Gau No. 232, which is the subject matter
of the present writ petition, was not included in the aforesaid
notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. Gat No. 232 also does not find place in the list of Gat
numbers reflected in Mutation entry Nos. 1525 and 1600 in
connection with the said acquisition proposal.
8] The record further shows that, in relation to Gat No. 232, a
remark concerning acquisition for the canal was entered through
Mutation entry No. 377, certified on 12.01.1993. The said
mutation entry is much prior to the acquisition proposal and the
notification referred to in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 above. Upon
verification of the available record, the said remark in respect of
Gat No. 232 is not traceable to, nor does it arise from, the
notification under Section 4 processed by this office.
7. A perusal of the above-quoted portion of the affidavit-in-reply
shows that as per the said respondents, the subject land of the
petitioner was not included in the notification for acquisition issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred as “LA Act”), and that Gat No. 232 itself is not reflected in
connection with the acquisition proposal. In the light of the aforesaid
statement made on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, it is evident that
the entry in the revenue record pertaining to the Kasarsai Canal
Project cannot continue in respect of the subject land. Accordingly, the
writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
Vishal Parekar ….4
5
26-WP-7070-2026.doc
8. In Writ Petition Nos. 7070 of 2026, 7236 of 2026, 7186 of 2026,
and 7187 of 2026, reply affidavits have been filed on behalf of the
respondent State authorities, the contents of which are almost
identical, and it is specifically stated that beyond issuing notifications
under Sections 4 and 6 of the LA Act, no further steps were taken in
respect of the subject lands. As a representative sample, paragraph 14
of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 5 in
Writ Petition No. 7070 of 2026 is quoted here-in-below:
14] I say that the office of deponent has not taken any steps save
and except publication of notification under section 4 and 6. I say
that as on date the remark is reflected on the mutation entry of the
suit lands.
9. We are of the opinion that in the light of such specific statement
on facts made on behalf of the respondent State authorities, it is
evident that there is no basis for continuing the entry of Kasarsai Left
Canal Project in the revenue record (7/12 extracts) pertaining to the
lands that are subject matter of the said writ petitions. Therefore, the
said writ petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
10. As noted hereinabove, in Writ Petition Nos. 2363 of 2026 and
2415 of 2026, the office of the learned Government Pleader has
received written instructions from the Deputy Collector,
Vishal Parekar ….5
6
26-WP-7070-2026.doc
Rehabilitation, Pune that the entries of the Kasarsai Left Canal Project
recorded in the revenue records (7/12 extracts) of the lands
pertaining to the said writ petitions shall be deleted within a specific
period of time. Hence, the said petitions are also allowed in terms of
prayer clause (b) of the said petitions.
11. Although the learned AGP submitted that in the light of the
specific instructions received from the Deputy Collector,
Rehabilitation, Pune, this Court may consider granting 16 weeks to
delete the aforesaid entries in the revenue records pertaining to lands
concerned with the present writ petitions as certain procedure as per
Government Resolution dated 18.01.2022 is required to be followed,
we are of the opinion that in the present case it is not necessary to
give such a long period of time for compliance. This is for the reason
that the procedure contemplated in the Government Resolution is
necessary for ensuring that the affected party should be put to notice.
In this case, the entries pertained to the State authorities themselves
in respect of acquisitions that never fructified. Therefore, the action to
be undertaken by the respondent State authorities is merely a
correction of the record in the light of the stated stand taken before
this Court.
Vishal Parekar ….6
7
26-WP-7070-2026.doc
12. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed in the above
terms, and consequential steps shall be taken by the respondent State
authorities for deleting the aforesaid entries in the revenue records
pertaining to the lands concerning the present writ petitions within a
period of six weeks from today.
13. The petitions stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Vishal Parekar ….7
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.