1 16-wp-12544-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12544 OF 2026 Baban Devba Sadakal (since deceased through LRs) and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Others …Respondents ****** Mr. Y.B. Lengare a/w. Mr. Aditya Gaikwad and Mr. Sunny S.S., for the Petitioners. Smt. P.M.J. Deshpande, AGP, for the State. ****** CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned AGP representing the State authorities. 2. By this petition, the Petitioners are seeking a direction for deleting the subject property from acquisition and for modifying an award passed as far back as on 24.11.1997. In the alternative, the Petitioners are seeking a direction for the Respondents to delete the subject land from acquisition and modify the aforesaid award, upon the Petitioners depositing the compensation amount with the State authorities. As a last option, the Petitioners are seeking a direction for Vishal Parekar ….1 VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2026.09.29 17:37:52 +0530 2 16-wp-12544-2026.doc the Respondent State authorities to decide representation dated 01.08.2026 submitted by them seeking such a relief from the State authorities. 3. The undisputed sequence of events in the present case is that the subject land was acquired as far back as in the year 1997 when Land Acquisition Award dated 24.11.1997 was passed. It is undisputed that the Petitioners/ their predecessors received compensation amount under the said award. It is a further admitted position that till 01.08.2026, the Petitioners did not make any claim before the Respondent State authorities. In other words, after about 30 years have passed, the Petitioners have woken up from their slumber and made a representation dated 01.08.2026 before the Respondent State authorities claiming the aforementioned relief. 4. There is no provision in law to seek "modification" of a land acquisition award, and that too after about 30 years, by seeking deletion of the subject property from the effect of the land acquisition award. It is claimed that the subject property has not been utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired and, therefore, now the Petitioners after about 30 years are entitled to seek deletion of the acquisition. Vishal Parekar ….2 3 16-wp-12544-2026.doc 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied upon Government Resolution dated 10.10.1973 to claim that since the subject land was not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired for a period of three years, the land ought to be restored to the Petitioners as they are ready to deposit the amount of compensation along with 6% interest. Reliance is also placed on an order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10131 of 2021 (Bapu Shivaji More vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) passed on 14.12.2021. 6. We find that the prayers made in the present writ petition cannot be entertained in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments, including order passed in the case of State of Kerala and Others vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and Another, (1997) 5 SCC 432. In the said order, it was held as follows: 4] In view of admitted section that the land in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The question emerges whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners ? It is settled law that land is acquired for a public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount Fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that the executive order is not in consonance with the provision of the Act and is, therefore, invalid. under these circumstances, the Division Bench is well justified in declaring the executive order Vishal Parekar ….3 4 16-wp-12544-2026.doc as invalid. whatever assignment is made, should be for a public purpose. otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold only through the public actions so that the public also gets benefited by getting higher value. 7. Apart from this, we find that even the said Government Resolution dated 10.10.1973 cannot apply to the facts of the present case, simply because it stipulates that the benefit of the said Government Resolution would be available if the subject land is not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired within a period of three years from taking over of possession. In the present case, the stated claim of the Petitioners is that they continue to be in possession of the subject land. In other words, the Petitioners have continued in possession of the subject land as per their own statement, despite having collected the compensation in terms of the land acquisition award dated 24.11.1997. Thus, the said Government Resolution does not apply to the facts of the present case. For the same reasons, we are of the opinion that the order in the case of Bapu Shivaji More (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case. 8. The above-quoted portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra) makes it abundantly clear that once the land has vested in the State, there is no question of Vishal Parekar ….4 5 16-wp-12544-2026.doc assigning the land back to the erstwhile owners. The Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that even if the land is to be disposed of, it shall be put to public auction, and the amount fetched in the public auction would be utilized for public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. Therefore, there is no question of entertaining the present writ petition. We also find that if such prayers or representations, filed almost 30 years after the land acquisition award has been rendered, are entertained, it would be a travesty and it would amount to giving premium to persons who illegally retain possession after the land acquisition award has been passed and compensation has been duly paid. 9. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the present writ petition, and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Vishal Parekar ….5