Bombay High Court
VIKAS RAMVILAS MUNDHADA AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the respondents' refusal to release the awarded compensation was unsustainable and quashed the impugned letter, directing immediate payment with interest.
Summary
The petitioners sought payment of compensation awarded on 27‑04‑2026 following a land acquisition, which the respondents had withheld citing a revenue record indicating non‑agricultural use of the land and a potential penalty under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The respondents relied on a letter dated 02‑07‑2026 and argued that until clarification on any liability was obtained, the compensation could not be released. The Court examined whether such a stance was legally permissible and whether the petitioners were entitled to the awarded amount with interest under Section 80 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. It held that the respondents had not justified the withholding of the compensation and that the impugned letter was unsustainable. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the letter was quashed, and the respondents were directed to pay the compensation of Rs.2,40,97,139 and Rs.53,18,202 with statutory interest within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents can lawfully withhold compensation awarded under the land acquisition award on the ground of alleged non‑agricultural use and a prospective penalty under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
- Whether the impugned letter dated 02‑07‑2026 is valid and can be used to delay payment of compensation.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on delayed compensation under Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- non‑agricultural use
- penalty
- Section 80 interest
- writ of mandamus
- Maharashtra Tenancy Act
- RFCTLARR Act
Judgment
1
9-wp-9094-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9094 OF 2026
Vikas Ramvilas Mundhada and Others …Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others …Respondents
VISHAL
SUBHASH ******
PAREKAR Dr. Ramdas Sabban a/w. Mr. Rohit Chitiken, Mr. Pravin Sabban and
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
PAREKAR Mr. Shrikant Kompelli, for the Petitioners.
Date: 2026.09.11
17:46:26 +0530
Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni a/w. Ms. Sweta Shah and Mr. Shreyas Z., for
Respondent No. 4- PMC.
Mr. B.U. Samant, Addl.G.P. a/w. Mr. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP, for the
State.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. In pursuance of order dated 25.08.2026, the respondent No. 3,
Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 15, Pune (SLAO), has sworn an
affidavit dated 10.10.2026, and the same is tendered before this
Court. The said affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3
is taken on record.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that
despite the land acquisition award being passed on 27.04.2026
determining the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners,
Vishal Parekar ….1
2
9-wp-9094-2026.doc
the same has not been disbursed in their favour in light of the stand
taken by the respondents as reflected in the impugned letter dated
02.07.2026.
3. It is submitted that the compensation amount is being held back
on the ground that a remark in the revenue record (7/12 extract)
refers to the use of the subject land for non-agricultural purposes, and
in that context, the obligation to deposit a certain amount is wholly
irrelevant and is being used as an excuse by the respondent authorities
to deprive the petitioners of their rightful claim towards
compensation.
4. In the earlier orders passed by this Court, it was noted that a
strong prima facie case was indeed made out by the petitioners in
their favour, but an opportunity was given to the respondents to justify
the stand taken in the impugned letter dated 02.07.2026.
5. In the latest affidavit in reply of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 taken
on record today, a reference is made to the provisions of the
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, particularly
Section 63 thereof, to contend that in the event the subject land has
been utilized for non-agricultural purposes, a substantial amount
Vishal Parekar ….2
3
9-wp-9094-2026.doc
towards penalty is leviable. It is submitted that unless respondent No.
3 (SLAO) receives a clarification from the concerned department of
the State as to whether any such liability is found in respect of the
subject land, disbursal of the compensation amount cannot be
permitted.
6. We are of the opinion that the stand taken in the reply affidavit
and the reasons stated in the impugned letter dated 02.07.2026 to
hold back the amount of monetary compensation payable to the
petitioners are wholly unsustainable, and the respondents have not
been able to justify the impugned action.
7. The respondent authorities cannot be permitted to hold back
monetary compensation due and payable to the petitioners
/landowners on some imaginary or apprehended liability that may
arise in the context of the subject land. The stand taken by the
respondents has unnecessarily delayed the disbursement of the
monetary compensation to the petitioners, and therefore, we are
inclined to allow the writ petition.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a), which reads as follows:
Vishal Parekar ….3
4
9-wp-9094-2026.doc
(a) This High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or
order, thereby to quash & set aside the impugned letter
dt. 02-07-2026 issued by the Respondent SLAO No. 15,
Pune to the Petitioners, with further direction to the
Respondent SLAO No. 15, Pune to forthwith pay the
compensation amount of Rs. Rs.2,40,97,139/- & Rs.
53,18,202/- with appropriate statutory interest thereon
u/S. 80 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 for delayed payment
period.
9. Needless to say, the respondent authorities would be at liberty
to proceed in accordance with law if at all there is any amount due
and payable in the context of the apprehension expressed before this
Court. Such steps, if any, obviously will have to be taken strictly in
accordance with law.
10. The aforesaid amounts in terms of prayer clause (a) shall be
disbursed in favour of the petitioners within a period of four weeks
from today.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Vishal Parekar ….4
Checking your session…