Bombay High Court
MAHARASHTRA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICERversusSUBHASH LAKSHMAN PATRADHAN DIED THR HIS SOLE LR HARSHAL S PATRADHAN THR SUNIL S BHENDALE AND ANR
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The writ petition is premature and cannot be entertained; the petitioner may raise his defence in the pending Sub‑Divisional Officer proceedings.
Summary
The Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19‑02‑2026 that issued a notice under Section 28‑A of the Land Acquisition Act against it. The petitioner relied on earlier judgments (First Appeal Nos. 10 of 2003 and 1109 of 2002) which held that references to Section 18 were illegal and sought to argue that the present Section 28‑A proceeding was barred by limitation. The Court examined the submissions and observed that the matter was already pending before the Sub‑Divisional Officer, where the petitioner was a party and could raise any defence, including questions of maintainability or limitation. Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition was premature and could not be entertained at this stage. The petition was therefore disposed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file applications or objections in the pending administrative proceeding.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice issued under Section 28‑A of the Land Acquisition Act can be challenged by a writ petition.
- Whether the proceeding under Section 28‑A is barred by limitation.
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the same matter is sub‑judice before a Sub‑Divisional Officer.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 18, 28-A
Subjects
- Land Acquisition
- Section 28-A
- Section 18
- Limitation
- Writ Petition
- Premature filing
- Sub‑judice
- Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:31486
39-wp-8526-2026.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8526 OF 2026
Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Through Its Regional
Officer
VERSUS
Subhash Lakshman Patradhan Died Thr His Sole Lr Harshal S
Patradhan Thr Sunil S Bhendale And Anr
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Naik Thigle Girish K.
AGP for Respondent/State : Ms. R.R. Tandale
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : JULY 27, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Present writ petition is filed with following prayer :
“b) Rule may be further made absolute through issuing writ
order or direction in the like nature and the proceedings bearing
जा. .2026/भूसंपादन/का -40 & the impugned order dated
19.02.2026 may kindly be quashed and set aside.”
2. Mr. Thigle, learned advocate appearing for petitioner
invites attention of this Court to order passed in First Appeal Nos.10
of 2003 and 1109 of 2002, wherein this Court made observations that
common reference made by respondents under Section 18 of Land
Acquisition Act was not maintainable and, therefore, award passed to
that extent was held to be illegal and amount withdrawn by
claimants/respondents was directed to be refunded back.
3. According to Mr. Thigle, for self-same lands, respondents
have initiated proceeding under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act
before Sub-Divisional Officer and impugned notice issued in that
proceeding is served upon petitioner. It is contention of petitioner that
वि
39-wp-8526-2026.odt
(2)
proceeding initiated by respondents under Section 28-A of Land
Acquisition Act would not be maintainable being barred by limitation.
So also, in light of observations of this Court in aforesaid first appeals,
application under Section 28-A at instance of respondents could not
have been entertained.
4. Having considered submissions advanced, this Court
finds that present petition is premature as it raises challenge to order
issuing notice of proceeding initiated under Section 28-A of Land
Acquisition Act. The proceeding filed by respondents under Section
28-A of Land Acquisition Act is subjudice before Sub-Divisional
Officer. The petitioner has already caused appearance being party in
proceeding. The petitioner would be at liberty to file reply if already
not filed and also put up their defence on point of maintainability or
non-maintainability or limitation of proceeding under Section 28-A
initiated by respondents. This Court finds that at this stage, writ
petition need not be entertained. Needless to state here, petitioner
would be at liberty to challenge any adverse orders passed by Sub-
Divisional Officer.
5. Liberty to file application including a specific application
objecting maintainability of petition.
6. Writ Petition stands disposed of with liberty as prayed for.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Mujaheed//
Checking your session…