904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14747 OF 2022 Ramchandra Vasudeo Joshi ...Petitioner Versus State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 14746 OF 2022 Balwant Vaman Joshi ...Petitioner Versus State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9979 OF 2025 Balu Ambrushi Bagale ...Petitioner Versus State Of Maha. Thr. Collector Of Solapour And Ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5346 OF 2024 Rasul Kasim Bagwan Decd. Thr. Lhr Jabbar Rasul Bagwan ...Petitioner Versus State Of Maha. Thr. Collector Of Solapur And Ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5867 OF 2024 Pandurang Gopal Kulkarni ...Petitioner Versus Arya Chavan 1 of 8 2026:BHC-KOL:9061-DB 904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc State Of Maha. Thr. Collector Of Solapur And Ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5323 OF 2024 Nishikant Madhusudhan Dixit And Ors ...Petitioners Versus State Of Maha. Thr. Collector Solapur And Ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9978 OF 2025 (Not on Board) Vilas Dattatray Survase And Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State Of Maha. Thr. Collector Solapur And Ors ...Respondents —————— Mr. Tanaji Mhatugade, for the Petitioner. Mr. Rupesh Bobade a/w Ms. Shradha Nakadi, for the Petitioners in WP No. 9979/25, WP No. 5346/24,WP No. 5867/24, WP No. 5323/24 and WP No. 9978/25. Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar, senior panel counsel, for the Respondent No. 3 in WP No. 14746/22 and WP No. 14747/22, for the Respondent No. 4 in WP No. 5323/24 and for the Respondent No. 5 in WP No. 9979/25, WP No. 5346/24, WP No. 5867/24 and WP No. 9978/25. —————— Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. Date : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 P. C. : 1. These group of Petitions seek identical relief of direction to the Respondents to pay the amount as determined by Awards passed under the provisions of Section 28A(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “Land Acquisition Act”) in a time bound manner. Common submissions were canvassed and the Petitions are being disposed of by this common Arya Chavan 2 of 8 904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc order. The Awards under Section 28A(2) of Land Acquisition Act re- determined the compensation on the basis of Award of the Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 23 of 2003 dated 18th December, 2019. 2. For the sake of clarity, the facts of Writ Petition No. 14747 of 2022 are referred. 3. The initial Award in respect of the subject land under Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Solapur No. 2, Solapur on 19th July, 2002, determining the compensation in respect of compensation of Gat No. 422 (part). One Mr. Chandrakant Ambrushi Pawar and others had filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being LAR No. 28 of 2003, which was party allowed enhancing compensation granted to the said Mr. Chandrakant Ambrushi Pawar. As against the enhancement of compensation to the said Mr. Chandrakant Pawar, an Appeal was preferred by the Respondent No. 3 before this Court (Principal Seat), which came to be admitted. By order dated 22nd November, 2021, this Court in the said Appeal granted stay to the execution, subject to the condition that the entire amount as determined by LAR No. 23 of 2003 be deposited before the Reference Court with liberty to the original Claimant therein to move for withdrawal of the amount of compensation, pursuant to which the amount was deposited, the application for withdrawal was filed before the Reference Court, and the original Claimant was Arya Chavan 3 of 8 904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc permitted to withdraw the amount. 4. The Petitioner filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act seeking re-determination of compensation and the award under Section 28A was passed on 27th July, 2021. As there is no Appeal/challenge to the award passed in favour of the Petitioner under Section 28A(2), the present Petition has been filed seeking execution of the award. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that once the award has been passed under Section 28A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, which is not the subject matter of challenge by the acquiring body, the same is required to be implemented. Upon a query by this Court, he submits that an award passed under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act is not executable as a decree, by pointing out the provisions of Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act. He would submit that even if the award passed in LAR No. 23 of 2003 is challenged, this Court directed the Respondents to deposit the amount in the Reference Court and permitted the Claimant therein to file an application for withdrawal and the amount was permitted to be withdrawn. He submits that the present Petitioners are required to be treated similarly being identically situated. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3-acquiring body would submit that the Petition is not maintainable, as the award Arya Chavan 4 of 8 904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc passed under Section 28A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is a decree within the meaning of Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is executable. He submits that there was re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of Land Acquisition on the basis of enhanced compensation granted to Chandrakant Pawar, which is the subject matter of challenge before the High Court, and therefore, this Court cannot direct the Respondents to make the payment as per the award passed under Section 28A(2) of Land Acquisition Act. 7. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that there has been re- determination of the amount of compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act in favour of the Petitioners in view of the enhanced compensation granted in LAR No. 23 of 2003. The opposition to the Petition is premised on the ground that the award by the Collector under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act partakes the nature of decree under Section 26(2) of the Land Acquisition Act which can be executed. It may be borne in mind that writ jurisdiction is extra ordinary jurisdiction, which is discretionary and the availability of an alternate remedy does not bar the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is self imposed rule of restraint that where there is an alternate remedy available, the writ Court would usually not interfere. 9. Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under : Arya Chavan 5 of 8 904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc 26. Form of awards “(1) Every award under this part shall be in writing signed by the Judge, and shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of sub-section (1) of section 23, and also the amounts (if any) respectively awarded under each of the other clauses of the same sub-section, together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts. (2)Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of section 2, clause (2), and section 2, clause (9), respectively of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).” 10. A plain reading of the said provision would indicate that only those awards which are passed by Court is deemed to be a decree. Sub Section (1) of Section 26 states that every award under this part shall be in writing signed by the Judge. Section 26 is placed in Part III of Land Acquisition Act. Similarly Section 28A also finds place in Part III of Land Acquisition Act, however, the award under Section 28A is passed by the Collector by re-determining the compensation in accordance with order of Reference Court in case of identically placed land owner covered by the same notification. Sub-Section 2 of Section 26 uses the expression “every such award”, which is referable to Section 26(1) of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. award passed by the Court. The Petitioners therefore have no remedy but to approach this Court for execution of the award passed under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act. 11. Coming to the merits, the compensation was re-determined in view of the enhancement granted by the Reference Court in LAR No. 23 of 2003. Being aggrieved by the enhancement in LAR No. 23 of 2003, an Arya Chavan 6 of 8 904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc Appeal has been preferred by the Respondent No. 3 and by order dated 22nd November, 2021, this Court had granted stay to the execution subject to deposit of the entire amount of compensation along with interest accrued thereon in terms of the impugned award within a period of ten weeks from today. As the basis for re-determination under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act is sub-judice in the First Appeal proceedings before the Court, we are of the opinion, that the relief of direction to the Respondents to make the payment as per the award passed under Section 28A(2) dated 27th July, 2021 cannot be granted. The Petitioners claim to enhanced compensation is dependent on the fate of the First Appeal proceedings. However, it cannot be disputed that the Petitioners are entitled to identical interim relief as the Appellants in First Appeal pending before this Court. 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has tendered the documents to evidence the deposit of the amount in the Reference Court and the order passed by the Reference Court allowing the application for withdrawal. As there is an order of the High Court in the First Appeal proceedings directing deposit of the amount before the Reference Court, we are inclined to pass identical order of deposit. In the case of First Appeal, as the proceedings arose out of Reference Court proceedings, the Respondents were directed to deposit the amount in the Reference Court. In present facts, the amount will have to be Arya Chavan 7 of 8 904-WP-14747-2022 (1).doc deposited by the Respondent No 3 in this Court to be governed by the orders passed by this Court. 13. In light of the discussion above, the Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation alongwith the interest accrued thereon in this Court in terms of the award passed under Section 28A(2) of Land Acquisition Act within a period of twelve weeks from today. 14. It is open for the Petitioners to move an application seeking withdrawal of the amount deposited. The Respondent No. 3 will be at liberty to raise all contentions to oppose withdrawal of the amount, in case, any such application is filed. 15. The Petitions are allowed in the above terms. 16. Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Arya Chavan 8 of 8