SHREE NAVEEN ANANT GAWALIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY URBAN LAND AND DEVELOPMENT AN DORS

                                                                                       7-wp-8010-2026.doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 8010 OF 2026

                     Shree Naveen Anant Gawali                   ..           Petitioner
                     V/S.
                     The State of Maharashtra Thr The ..                    Respondents
                     Secretary   Urban   Land     And
                     Development And Ors
                                                    -------------------
                     Mr. S.T. Pandey with Imran Asgar, Deepika Jaiswal, Kajal Upadhyay
                     and Deepak Singh i.by S.T. Pandey, for the petitioner.
                     Ms. P.M.J. Deshpande, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State.
        Digitally
        signed by
        VARSHA
VARSHA DEEPAK
                                                    --------------------
DEEPAK GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
        2026.07.02                                  CORAM :           MANISH PITALE &
        14:59:03
        +0530                                                         SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT,
                                                                      JJ.
                                                      DATE      :     2ND JULY 2026.
                     PC:


                     1.        Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

                     2.        Learned AGP represents the State authorities i.e respondent
                     Nos. 1 to 3.

                     3.        The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29/05/2026 passed
                     by respondent No. 2, competent authority and Sub Divisional Officer
                     under Section 19C(3) of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955. By the
                     said order, respondent No. 2 has rejected the objection raised on
                     behalf of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 has held that the petitioner
                     failed to demonstrate a case for disbursal of compensation in his
                     favour.

                      varsha                                                                      1 of 3
                                                                7-wp-8010-2026.doc



4.        Respondent No. 2 further directed that the compensation
amount be disbursed to the private respondents.

5.        Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of
the opinion that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 does
not deserve any interference. It is a well reasoned order, which has
considered all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.

6.        It is specifically found that in the 7/12 extract (revenue record)
the name of the respondents is recorded as owners. Merely because
the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of
an agreement against the private respondents would not ipso facto
result in any crystallised right created in favour of the petitioner. As a
matter of fact, the aforesaid suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.
161/2024 is pending before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division,
Ulhasnagar.

7.        We find that respondent No. 2 has indeed taken into
consideration the entire factual position to hold that the petitioner as
of today has not been able to make out a case to claim rights in the
subject property in order to seek disbursal of compensation in his
favour. We find that the right of the petitioner is still inchoate and in
such circumstances, respondent No. 2 has correctly exercised power
under Section 19C(3) of the aforesaid Act while rejecting the
objections raised by the petitioner.

8.        The petitioner is indeed at liberty to pursue his remedies,
including the aforesaid pending Civil Suit.

9.        At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
this Court my consider granting stay on                  disbursal of the

 varsha                                                                    2 of 3
                                                                  7-wp-8010-2026.doc



compensation amount for a limited period, as the petitioner intends to
file an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 29/05/2026 passed by
respondent No. 2.

10.       We are not inclined to grant any such relief, as we are in
agreement with the findings rendered by respondent No.2 in the
impugned order.

11.       Needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to exhaust the
appellate remedy.

12.       In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

13.       It is made clear that in the event an appeal is filed or when the
petitioner pursues his aforesaid remedies, including the said pending
suit, the concerned authorities and Courts shall consider the
contentions of the petitioner on their own merit, without being
influenced by the order of this Court.




(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)                          (MANISH PITALE, J.)




 varsha                                                                      3 of 3