20_WP_5637_21.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5637 OF 2021 Rajendra Gajanan Patil … Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Public Works Department & others … Respondents Mr. Anilkumar K. Patil a/w. Mr. Laxmikant Patil and Mr. Digvijay Patil for petitioner. Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 6 – State authorities. CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ DATE : 27th JULY, 2026 P.C. : . The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondents in taking possession of the subject land of petitioner located in Gat No.86, Village Kalamkhand, Taluka Wada, District Palghar, in the year 2010 for widening of an existing road. It is the case of the petitioner that despite possession having been taken as far back as in the year 2010 and notices having been issued in the year 2011, offering compensation by negotiation and agreement, no further steps were taken by the respondents to pay just, fair and reasonable compensation to the petitioner. 2. It is submitted that therefore, this is a case of violation of the petitioner’s right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. In that context, the petitioner seeks direction against the respondents to take steps for acquisition of the subject land, computation of compensation and payment thereof, under the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in 1/4 PRIYA KAMBLI Digitally signed by PRIYA KAMBLI Date: 2026.07.27 18:15:52 +0530 20_WP_5637_21.doc Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013). The petitioner also prays for compensation and damages for having taken illegal possession of the subject land as far back in the year 2010. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are represented by the learned AGP. Reply affidavit dated 21.04.2025 has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4. The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as follows: “5) I say that accordingly, the joint measurement was conducted and its reports was prepared on 6.12.2010. As per the joint measurement report, it is reflected that the Petitioner land bearing S.No. 86 area admeasuring 1690.00 Square Metre land is acquired. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 4 is the copy of joint measurement report. 6) I say that since the land of Petitioner was taken into possession for said project, public notices were issued on 27.4.2011, 2.6.2011 and 26.2.2013 in local newspaper and on 4.3.2014 in Sakal newspaper. By and under the Public Notice dated 4.3.2014, the Petitioner alongwith other occupants were informed to contact with this Respondents and Respondent No.7 for claiming of compensation amount. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 5 Colly. are the copies of notices dt. 27.4.2011, 2.6.2011 and 26.2.2013. 7) I say that as per the BOT agreement and work order it was primary responsibility of the Respondent No.7 to acquire land of the Petitioner by entering into agreement/sale deed and to pay compensation accordingly. However, it appears from the record that the Respondent No.7 failed to do so for the reason best known to him. 8) I say that since the Respondent No.7 committed breach of contract and the Work Order and failed to 2/4 20_WP_5637_21.doc comply with the condition of repairing and maintenance of the road, his contract is terminated on 11.10.2019. 9) I say that as per the new G.R. dated 12.05.2015 and 30.09.2015 the Petitioner's land can be taken through private negotiation, therefore, this Respondent is ready and willing to pay the compensation amount for the acquired possession of the Petitioner's land for the said project through private negotiation. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit '6' Colly are copies of G.R., dated 12.05.2015 and 30.09.2015. 10) I say that this Respondent is reserved his right for recovery of amount of compensation for acquisition of Petitioner's land from the Respondent No. 7 by adopting appropriate procedure. 11) I say that as per the Order of this Hon'ble Court dated 09.04.2025, the present affidavit is supposed to be filed on or before 17.04.2025, however, due to non availability of the documents there is delay in filing the present affidavit for which the Respondent is sincere apology to this Hon'ble Court.” 4. A perusal of the above-quoted contents of the reply affidavit clearly shows that while respondent No.4 was engaged for completing the work of road-widening, the work order was cancelled. The said fact is irrelevant for deciding the present writ petition. What is more relevant and crucial is that respondent Nos.1 to 6 have not denied the fact that the possession was indeed taken in the year 2010 and till date, compensation has not been paid. As a matter of fact, the said respondents have stated in the above-quoted portion of the affidavit that they are ready to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. The Supreme Court, in a number of cases, including in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another vs. Bimal Kumar Shah 3/4 20_WP_5637_21.doc and others, (2024) 10 SCC 533, has held that although the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it is indeed a constitutional and human right, which cannot be trampled upon by the State authorities. In the present case, in the light of the admitted position on facts that the petitioner is deprived of the said land since the year 2010 and till date, compensation has not been paid, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, respondent Nos.1 to 6 are directed to immediately take steps for acquisition of the said land of the petitioner, computation and payment of compensation in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2013. The aforesaid entire process, including payment of compensation shall be completed within a period of 6 months from the date of this order. 7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) 4/4 Priya Kambli