1 110wp7692of2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 7692 OF 2026 (Anil s/o Wasudeo Khanke Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors.) __________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders __________________________________________________________________________________________ Ms. Shilpa Giripunje, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, AGP for respondent No.1/State. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR & RAJNISH R. VYAS,JJ. DATE : 08/10/2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The land of the petitioner was acquired by private negotiation and sale deed was executed. The issue involved in this petition is regarding grant of interest from the date of possession, by the Land Acquisition Officer. Impugned order dated 7.9.2026, passed by respondent No. 1, refuses to grant interest @ 15% per annum from 1.9.2017 till 1.12.2023. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the order dated 12.2.2026, passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation i.e. Writ Petition No. 3291/2025, by which it has been concluded that since the disputed question of facts are involved regarding date of possession, the petition cannot be entertained. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by way of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14461/2026 which refused to interfere with the order passed by this Court but allowed the petitioner to institute appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum and permitted petitioner to make representation. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of on 30.4.2026. In that Belkhede 2 110wp7692of2026.doc background, the petitioner made the representation with the respondent No.1. which came to be rejected. 4. In this background, the petitioner submits that since the possession has been taken long before the date of registration of sale deed, he would be entitled for interest from that day. Further, the learned Counsel has drawn our attention to Section 63 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act of 2013”) and contended that civil suit would not be in a position to decide the issue raised in the petition. 5. With the help of learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the case record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced. 6. At the outset, it is necessary to mention here that in earlier round of litigation, this Court has categorically held that since the disputed question of facts are involved regarding grant of interest qua the date of possession, the petition cannot be entertained. At that time, even the sale deed was taken into consideration. It is undisputed that even the Hon’ble Apex Court did not entertain the challenge against the order passed by this Court. 7. If, in the aforesaid background, the sale deed executed on 29.11.2010 which is produced at page 3 of the Pursis is perused, it would be crystal clear that on the date of execution of sale deed i.e. 29.11.2010, the possession was handed over by the petitioner to the authorities concerned. Thus, the registered document clearly shows that handing over of the possession is on 29.11.2010. Now, the contention of the petitioner that possession was taken before execution of the sale deed despite clause in the sale deed specifying Belkhede 3 110wp7692of2026.doc date of possession 29.11.2010, would be deciding a disputed question of facts. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate person and, therefore, mere signing the sale deed would not be sufficient to conclude that the terms and conditions were agreeable to him. We are surprised to hear such argument, as, once the party executes a registered document, it is presumed that it was aware of the terms and conditions thereof. Even otherwise, that would be a matter of evidence which can be led before the Civil Court. 9. When the disputed question of facts are to be decided on the basis of interpretation of the documents, it would be the Civil Court which would be competent to deal with the matter. As regard the applicability of Section 63 of the Act of 2013 is concern, it is crystal clear that the jurisdiction is barred when the dispute relates to the land acquisition. In the present case, the issue does not pertains to land acquisition but deciding the date of possession. 10. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that Section 63 of the Act of 2013 would not come in the way of the petitioner if Civil Suit is filed. Hence, we grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for proving the date of possession and claiming interest if it is proved that the possession was taken much before the date of amount paid towards compensation. The petition is disposed of, accordingly. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Belkhede Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/10/2026 17:45:42