DR PRAKASH KAHNAYALAL KANKRIYAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:36086-DB
                                          1                          14.WP.8127-2026.doc



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 8127 OF 2026

             Dr. Prakash Kahnayalal Kankriya
             Age: 65 years, Occu: Doctor
             R/o: Sai Surya Netra Seva,
             Vadhaman, Manik Chowk, Ahilyanagar.                            ...Petitioner


                                      VERSUS

             1.    The State Of Maharashtra,
                   through its Collector, Collector Office,
                   Ahilyanagar, District Ahilyanagar

             2.    Sub Divisional Officer,
                   Nagar Division,
                   Ahilyanagar

             3.    Deputy Superintendent Of Land Records,
                   Ahilyanagar

             4.    Executive engineer,
                   PWD department,
                   Ahilyanagar.                                        ...Respondents


                                         ******

                    Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Satyajit S. Bora
                    AGP for Respondent/State : Mr.S.K. Tambe

                                         ******

                                  CORAM       : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                                ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                             RESERVED ON : 27.07.2026
                           PRONOUNCED ON : 17.08.2026
                                  2                              14.WP.8127-2026.doc



JUDGMENT : ( PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)
.     Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

parties, the Writ Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2.    The petitioner by filing this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is seeking following reliefs :

     “B) That, by issuing writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of the
     Constitution of India, the respondent No.2 Sub Divisional Officer/ Land
     Acquisition Officer, Ahilyanagar, may kindly be directed to carryout
     correction in the Award dated 30.04.2010 thereby reducing the area
     under acquisition from land Gut No.190/2 of village Nimbalak, District
     Ahilyanagar from 63R to 23R.

     C)That, by issuing writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of the
     Constitution of India, the respondent No.2 Sub Divisional Officer/ Land
     Acquisition Officer, Ahilyanagar, may kindly be directed to decide the
     representation dated 05.03.2026 submitted by the petitioner for
     correction of the area in the Award dated 30.04.2010 thereby reducing
     the area under acquisition from land Gut No.190/2 of village Nimbalak,
     District Ahilyanagar from 63R to 23R within period of one month”


3.    In fact this is a second round of litigation. Undisputedly, the

petitioner is the owner of land Gut No. 190/2, admeasuring 6 H 62 R

from western side, by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated

13.01.1999 executed by one, Bhausaheb Kotkar.

4.    After the petitioner purchased the said land, the sub division

(pot hissa) measurement was carried out by the Taluka Inspector of

Land Records (TILR), District Ahilyanagar and same was sub-divided

into two parts, i.e., Gut No. 190/2/1 (Western Side) and Gut No.

190/2/2 (Eastern Side).
                            3                       14.WP.8127-2026.doc



5.    The respondents initiated the acquisition proceedings for the

purpose of construction of Ring Road/Bypass Road of Ahilyanagar

City. The notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(for short, ‘the Act of 1894’) was issued on 13.03.2008 and the

notification under Section 6 of the said Act was issued on

19.02.2009. Accordingly, the award under Section 11 of the Act of

1894 came to be passed on 30.04.2010, in which the land of the

petitioner admeasuring 63 R was shown to have been acquired.

Though, the ownership of the said land is with the petitioner however,

instead of his name, the name of his vendor was recorded in the

award.

6.    After noticing the said mistake in the award, the petitioner

approached the authority for correction but the said request was

turned down by the District Collector, Ahilyanagar. He, therefore,

approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 10018 of 2022. This

Court by an order dated 24.11.2025, set-aside the order passed by

the Collector, thereby directing him to decide the said application on

its own merits within a period of six (06) months from the date of

receipt of copy of the order.

7.    Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner

approached    the   respondent   No.   2/Sub-divisional     Officer       on
                             4                          14.WP.8127-2026.doc



05.03.2026, seeking correction in the award. The respondent No.

2/Sub-divisional Officer, on 09.03.2026, directed the respondent No.

4/Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, as well as

respondent    No.      3/Deputy   Superintendent   of      Land       Record,

Ahilyanagar, to submit their reports in respect of the area actually

coming under the acquisition and as to whether the petitioner has

withdrawn the compensation amount pursuant to the award to the

extent of 63 R land.

8.    Accordingly, the Executive Engineer on 06.04.2026 submitted

his report to the Sub-divisional Officer stating that the petitioner had

neither withdrawn the amount of compensation nor has filed any

application for enhancement of the compensation. The Deputy

Superintendent of Land Record, too, submitted his report on

12.03.2026 giving nod for the correction in the name as well as the

area actually acquired. However since, no action pursuant to the

directions issued by this Court and the reports submitted by the

Deputy Superintendent of Land Record as well as the Executive

Engineer, is taken by respondent No.2/Sub-divisional Officer, the

petitioner has approached this Court.

9.    We have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP

for the State and perused the record.
                               5                            14.WP.8127-2026.doc



10.   Though learned AGP has raised an objection on maintainability

of the Writ Petition on the ground that, there is no provision under Act

of 1894, to correct the award and that the petitioner can avail other

remedy as permissible in law however, we are not impressed with the

submissions of the learned AGP.

11.   It is trite law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and

discretionary. In our view, the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court

in case Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-

Assessing Authority and Others, [2023 SCC Online SC 95], which

guides us to hold that, this Court should issue a command in it’s

extraordinary Writ jurisdiction, after noticing that the petitioner

before us is innocent and it is not on account of his conduct but due

to the mistake of the authorities, in place of his name, name of his

vendor was shown in the Award. The relevant observation of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra), reads

thus:-

      “4. Before answering the questions, we feel the urge to say a few
      words on the exercise of writ powers conferred by Article 226 of the
      Constitution having come across certain orders passed by the high
      courts holding writ petitions as “not maintainable” merely because the
      alternative remedy provided by the relevant statutes has not been
      pursued by the parties desirous of invocation of the writ jurisdiction.
      The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 is plenary in
      nature. Any limitation on the exercise of such power must be traceable
      in the Constitution itself. Profitable reference in this regard may be
      made to Article 329 and ordainments of other similarly worded articles
                                  6                              14.WP.8127-2026.doc



       in the Constitution. Article 226 does not, in terms, impose any
       limitation or restraint on the exercise of power to issue writs. While it
       is true that exercise of writ powers despite availability of a remedy
       under the very statute which has been invoked and has given rise to
       the action impugned in the writ petition ought not to be made in a
       routine manner, yet, the mere fact that the petitioner before the high
       court, in a given case, has not pursued the alternative remedy
       available to him/it cannot mechanically be construed as a ground for
       its dismissal. It is axiomatic that the high courts (bearing in mind the
       facts of each particular case) have a discretion whether to entertain a
       writ petition or not. One of the self-imposed restrictions on the
       exercise of power under Article 226 that has evolved through judicial
       precedents is that the high courts should normally not entertain a writ
       petition, where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is
       available. At the same time, it must be remembered that mere
       availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the
       party invoking the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 has
       not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the high court and
       render a writ petition “not maintainable”. In a long line of decisions, this
       Court has made it clear that availability of an alternative remedy does
       not operate as an absolute bar to the “maintainability” of a writ
       petition and that the rule, which requires a party to pursue the
       alternative remedy provided by a statute, is a rule of policy,
       convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Though
       elementary, it needs to be restated that “entertainability” and
       “maintainability” of a writ petition are distinct concepts. The fine but
       real distinction between the two ought not to be lost sight of. The
       objection as to “maintainability” goes to the root of the matter and if
       such objection were found to be of substance, the courts would be
       rendered incapable of even receiving the lis for adjudication. On the
       other hand, the question of “entertainability” is entirely within the realm
       of discretion of the high courts, writ remedy being discretionary. A writ
       petition despite being maintainable may not be entertained by a high
       court for very many reasons or relief could even be refused to the
       petitioner, despite setting up a sound legal point, if grant of the
       claimed relief would not further public interest. Hence, dismissal of a
       writ petition by a high court on the ground that the petitioner has not
       availed the alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an
       exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment would not
       be proper.”

12.    Admittedly, while deciding Writ Petition No. 10018 of 2022 this
Court made following observations :

      “3.     The petitioner claims to have been purchased 6H 62 R land
      in Gut No.190/2 situated at Village Nimbalak, Taluka & Dist
      Ahmednagar, way back in the year 1999. The petitioners name was
      also recorded in the revenue record, pursuant to the sale deed
                                 7                             14.WP.8127-2026.doc



      dated 13.01.1999. Admeasuring 63 R land out of Gut No.190/2 came
      to be acquired for Bypass. The authorities concerned passed the
      award in favour of the original owner i.e., vendor who sold the land to
      the petitioner herein. The vendor is very much before us. He admits
      that the land which has been acquired was part and parcel of the
      land purchased by the petitioner herein. The Land Acquisition officer
      in his order dated 26.04.2022 admits in so many words that the 63 R
      land which is acquired was part and parcel of the land purchased by
      the petitioner herein. The description in the sale deed of the land
      purchased by the petitioner also vouch for the petitioner’s claim.
      The application of the petitioner under Section 13A of the Land
      Acquisition Act, 1894 was turned down on the ground that the
      application have been made beyond the prescribed period of
      limitation of six months.

      5.       We exercise our discretion. We find that there would be no
      undue mandatory ground either to the petitioner herein or loss to
      the State Government. Only the name of the petitioner would come
      in place of Respondent No.3 (original owner) in the award. It may
      sound that after rectification of the award a fresh period of
      limitation for making reference may accrued and the period of 10
      years delay may said to be coming in the way of the petitioner but
      the fact is that the petitioner had already made an application to
      the Collector for referring the matter to the Civil Court, wherein, the
      very land was included. The authorities concerned i.e. Collector has
      simply turned down the application on the ground of 6 months
      limitation to have been crossed. In the peculiar facts and
      circumstances and in view of the fact that the original vendor and
      even Respondent No.3-Collector/Land Acquisition Officer admit the
      land of the petitioner to have been affected by the acquisition
      proceedings and the award ought to have been passed in the name
      of the petitioner. In view of the same, we set aside the order
      impugned herein and direct Respondent No.3-Collector to consider
      the application of the petitioner on its own merits and decide the
      same within a time frame of 6 months from the date of receipt of
      copy of this order.”


13.    The aforesaid observations of this Court, as well as the reports

submitted by the Executive Engineer and Deputy Superintendent of

Land Record unequivocally shows that there is an apparent mistake
                            8                         14.WP.8127-2026.doc



in the award. Therefore, in the light of observations of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd (supra), having regard to

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to

exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction to entertain and allow this Writ

Petition. We, therefore, pass the following order :

                                ORDER

    i) The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’

    and ‘C’.

    ii)   Respondent    No.2/Sub-divisional     Officer,   District

    Ahilyanagar is directed to carry out the exercise of

    correcting the award dated 30.04.2010, within a period of

    four (04) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this

    order.

    iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.




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



vsj..