Suresh Mohanlal SharmaversusThe State of Maharashtra

bipin prithiani
                                     1
                                                        12-wp-9402.26.doc

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  WRIT PETITION NO. 9402 OF 2026

Suresh Mohanlal Sharma & Ors.                     …   Petitioners
     Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                   …   Respondent
                             ******
Ms. Pradnya Talekar a/w Ms. Madhavi Ayyappan i/by Talekar and
Associates for Petitioners.
Ms. Neha S. Bhide, G. P. a/w Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. G. P.
and Mr. S. P. Kamble, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3-State.
Mr. Kedar B. Dighe for Respondent No.2-PCMC.
                             ******
                         CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
                                 SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

                          DATE       : 10th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :

.         In this petition although formal notice was not issued,
respondent No.1 and 3 are represented by the learned AGP and
respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation is also represented by
Counsel.

2.        As a matter of fact, respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation
has filed its reply affidavit in this petition.

3.        Considering the contents of the writ petition and the
documents filed therewith, as also the reply affidavit placed on
record, it is an undisputed position on facts that the lands
belonging to the petitioners to the extent stated in paragraph 5 of
the writ petition, were utilized by the respondent No.2-Municipal
bipin prithiani
                                     2
                                                           12-wp-9402.26.doc

Corporation for construction of road. Till date, acquisition
proceedings for determination and payment of quantum of
compensation have not been initiated and the petitioners in this
backdrop, have prayed for a direction to the respondents to
acquire the said piece of land utilized for construction of the road
and to determine compensation, as per the provisions of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013).

4.        Although, it is not disputed by the respondents that the said
piece of land has been utilized for construction of road some time
in the years 2014 to 2016, the respondent No.2-Municipal
Corporation claims that it had deposited between 2008 and 2013,
a total amount of Rs.7,01,80,362/- with the respondent No.3-
Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), for the purpose of
compensating land owners concerned with the entire stretch of the
road construction exercise. It is claimed that some of the land
owners were also compensated by way of TDR/FSI. But, it is an
admitted position that the petitioners in this petition have not
been compensated at all, for utilization of their lands for
construction of the road.

5.        The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-
Municipal Corporation submits that the aforesaid amount
deposited with the respondent No.3-SLAO ought to be taken into
consideration while passing order in the present writ petition. It is
claimed that, if at all, directions are to be issued for acquisition of
bipin prithiani
                                    3
                                                         12-wp-9402.26.doc

the land, determination of compensation and payment thereof to
the petitioners, the market value of the land as in the year 2014
should be assessed and that should be made the basis for payment
of compensation.

6.        On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that this Court, in the interest of justice, ought
to direct the acquisition of the land and payment of compensation,
as per the value of the land as on today and also consider issuing
direction for payment of damages/rental compensation from the
year 2014 till the passing of award in pursuance of the land
acquisition proceedings, that would be initiated.

7.        In support of the said proposition, the learned counsel for
the petitioners relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case Madishetti Bala Ramul vs. Land Acquisition Officer , (2007) 9
SCC 650.

8.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we
find that in the face of the admitted position on facts, it can be
said that the right of the petitioners to property under Article
300A of the Constitution of India has been violated. The said right
is no longer a fundamental right, but in various judgments of the
Supreme Court, including the judgment in the case of Kolkata
Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors.,
(2024) 10 SCC 533, the said right has been recognized as a
valuable human right, which cannot be casually trampled upon by
the authorities.
bipin prithiani
                                    4
                                                         12-wp-9402.26.doc

9.        In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has recognized 7
sub-rights that constitute the right to property, which include the
right to notice, the right to be heard, the right to a reasoned
decision, the duty to acquire only for public purpose, the right of
restitution or fair compensation, the right to an efficient and
expeditious process and the right of conclusion.

10.       We are of the opinion that even if the contention raised on
behalf of the respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation is to be
taken into account, to the effect that the petitioners had notice
about utilization of their lands for construction of road in the light
of joint measurement exercise undertaken, such a notice would
not satisfy the specific sub-right recognized in the said judgment of
the Supreme Court, in as much as, the said notice had to be
followed up with appropriate action for initiating acquisition for
public purpose and determination of just, fair and reasonable
compensation. In the present case, the right to fair compensation,
the right to efficient and expeditious process and the right to
conclusion have been blatantly violated. Therefore, we are
inclined to allow the present writ petition.

11.       We are also of the opinion that for the time period between
2014 to the point in time, when the award shall be passed by the
Competent Authority, in the light of the directions that we intend
to issue in this writ petition, the petitioners are entitled to
damages/rental compensation, as per the policy of the State and in
any case, in terms of the position of law indicated by the Supreme
bipin prithiani
                                     5
                                                            12-wp-9402.26.doc

Court in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Madishetti Bala
Ramul vs. Land Acquisition Officer (supra).

12. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in the
following terms :
   (a) Respondent No.3-SLAO shall initiate the process of
          acquisition and determination of quantum of compensation
          payable to the petitioners for the subject land as on today,
          under the provisions of the Act of 2013, at the earliest and
          in any case, the process shall be initiated within four weeks
          from today.

    (b) The land acquisition proceedings shall be completed and
          award shall be rendered within 9 months from today.

    (c) The quantum of compensation determined in terms of the
          provisions of the Act of 2013, along with all statutory
          benefits, shall be paid to the petitioners within four weeks of
          the passing of the said award.
    (d) The petitioners shall have liberty to claim enhancement of
          compensation, if they so desire, in accordance with law.

    (e) For the period between 2014 till the passing of the award, as
          directed hereinabove, the petitioners shall be paid amount
          towards damages/rental compensation, in the light of the
          observations made hereinabove. The assessment of the
          quantum of such amount shall be undertaken and completed
          within six weeks of rendering of the award and the amount
          shall be disbursed to the petitioners within four weeks of
          such determination.
bipin prithiani
                                                        6
                                                                             12-wp-9402.26.doc

    (f) Needless to say, the financial burden of the said amounts
          shall                      be   borne   by   the   respondent   No.2-Municipal
          Corporation, which has undertaken the exercise of
          construction of road.

13.       Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

14.       It is made clear that the directions issued hereinabove, while
allowing the writ petition, are restricted to the petitioners before
this Court.



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


               Digitally signed by
  BIPIN        BIPIN
               DHARMENDER
  DHARMENDER   PRITHIANI
  PRITHIANI    Date: 2026.09.11
               11:01:29 +0530