7-wp-8010-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8010 OF 2026 Shree Naveen Anant Gawali .. Petitioner V/S. The State of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary Urban Land And Development And Ors .. Respondents ------------------- Mr. S.T. Pandey with Imran Asgar, Deepika Jaiswal, Kajal Upadhyay and Deepak Singh i.by S.T. Pandey, for the petitioner. Ms. P.M.J. Deshpande, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State. -------------------- CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 2ND JULY 2026. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Learned AGP represents the State authorities i.e respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29/05/2026 passed by respondent No. 2, competent authority and Sub Divisional Officer under Section 19C(3) of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955. By the said order, respondent No. 2 has rejected the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 has held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a case for disbursal of compensation in his favour. varsha 1 of 3 VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date: 2026.07.02 14:59:03 +0530 7-wp-8010-2026.doc 4. Respondent No. 2 further directed that the compensation amount be disbursed to the private respondents. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 does not deserve any interference. It is a well reasoned order, which has considered all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. 6. It is specifically found that in the 7/12 extract (revenue record) the name of the respondents is recorded as owners. Merely because the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement against the private respondents would not ipso facto result in any crystallised right created in favour of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 161/2024 is pending before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Ulhasnagar. 7. We find that respondent No. 2 has indeed taken into consideration the entire factual position to hold that the petitioner as of today has not been able to make out a case to claim rights in the subject property in order to seek disbursal of compensation in his favour. We find that the right of the petitioner is still inchoate and in such circumstances, respondent No. 2 has correctly exercised power under Section 19C(3) of the aforesaid Act while rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner. 8. The petitioner is indeed at liberty to pursue his remedies, including the aforesaid pending Civil Suit. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court my consider granting stay on disbursal of the varsha 2 of 3 7-wp-8010-2026.doc compensation amount for a limited period, as the petitioner intends to file an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 29/05/2026 passed by respondent No. 2. 10. We are not inclined to grant any such relief, as we are in agreement with the findings rendered by respondent No.2 in the impugned order. 11. Needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to exhaust the appellate remedy. 12. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 13. It is made clear that in the event an appeal is filed or when the petitioner pursues his aforesaid remedies, including the said pending suit, the concerned authorities and Courts shall consider the contentions of the petitioner on their own merit, without being influenced by the order of this Court. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) varsha 3 of 3