Bombay High Court
PIMPALESHWAR MANDIR DEOSTAN TRUST, THROUGH TRUSTEEversusSHRI. MATHEW ANTHONY FERNANDIS AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is infructuous and is disposed as there is no remaining relief to be granted.
Summary
The petitioners, a trust, sought relief in a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The State, as respondent No.6, filed a reply affidavit stating that, in light of the Court’s order dated 21‑04‑2017 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (S.L.P. (C) No.9036‑9038/2016) concerning Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, it was withdrawing its earlier letter dated 16‑04‑2014. The petitioners argued that the relief they sought had already been effectively granted and that nothing remained for the Court to decide. The Court examined whether the petition remained maintainable after the State’s withdrawal of its letter and the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Section 24. Concluding that no substantive relief survived, the Court held the petition infructuous and disposed of it, along with any pending applications.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition remains maintainable after the State’s recall of its earlier letter in view of the prior order and the Supreme Court’s decision on Section 24 of the RFA Act, 2013
- Effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal on the relief sought by the petitioners
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- infructuous
- Section 24
- RFA Act 2013
- land acquisition
- compensation
- Supreme Court decision
Judgment
15_WP7307_14.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7307 OF 2014
Pimpaleshwar Mandir Deostan Trust through Trustees … Petitioners
Vs.
Mathew Anthony Fernandis and others … Respondents
Mr. D. S. Mhaispurkar a/w. Mr. H. S. Pawaskar and Mr. Rohan Patil for
Petitioners.
Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for Respondents - State.
Ms. Shyamali Gadre a/w. Ms. Mrunal Tavade i/b. Little & Co. for Respondent
No.4 - MIDC.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 22, 2026
P.C. :
. In this petition, respondent No.6 - State has filed its reply affidavit
making the following categorical statement:-
“3. Respondent No.6 has directed me to bring it to the kind
notice of this Hon. Court that in the light of order dated
21/04/2017 passed by this Hon. Court in the present Writ
Petition, it is respectfully submitted that considering Hon.
Supreme Court’s order dated 06/03/2020 in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.9036-9038/2016, Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others regarding Section 24 of
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,
Distribution of Compensation after the Award and Transfer of
possession of acquired land to Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation, Respondent No.6 is taking back its
letter dated 16/04/2014. Hereto annexed and marked as
Exhibit-2 is the copy of the said letter dated 16/04/2014.”
2. In view of the above, as the respondent - State itself is recalling
letter dated 16.04.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner Trust
PRIYA Digitally signed
by PRIYA KAMBLI
submits that nothing survives in this petition as the relief prayed for has
KAMBLI Date: 2026.06.22
18:05:01 +0530
1/2
15_WP7307_14.doc
been effectively granted to the petitioner by the said stand taken by the
respondent - State.
3. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as
infructuous.
4. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Minal Parab
2/2
Checking your session…