39-wp-8526-2026.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8526 OF 2026 Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Through Its Regional Officer VERSUS Subhash Lakshman Patradhan Died Thr His Sole Lr Harshal S Patradhan Thr Sunil S Bhendale And Anr ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Naik Thigle Girish K. AGP for Respondent/State : Ms. R.R. Tandale ... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : JULY 27, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Present writ petition is filed with following prayer : “b) Rule may be further made absolute through issuing writ order or direction in the like nature and the proceedings bearing जा..2026/भूसंपादन/का -40 & the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. Mr. Thigle, learned advocate appearing for petitioner invites attention of this Court to order passed in First Appeal Nos.10 of 2003 and 1109 of 2002, wherein this Court made observations that common reference made by respondents under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act was not maintainable and, therefore, award passed to that extent was held to be illegal and amount withdrawn by claimants/respondents was directed to be refunded back. 3. According to Mr. Thigle, for self-same lands, respondents have initiated proceeding under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act before Sub-Divisional Officer and impugned notice issued in that proceeding is served upon petitioner. It is contention of petitioner that 2026:BHC-AUG:31486 39-wp-8526-2026.odt (2) proceeding initiated by respondents under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act would not be maintainable being barred by limitation. So also, in light of observations of this Court in aforesaid first appeals, application under Section 28-A at instance of respondents could not have been entertained. 4. Having considered submissions advanced, this Court finds that present petition is premature as it raises challenge to order issuing notice of proceeding initiated under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act. The proceeding filed by respondents under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act is subjudice before Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioner has already caused appearance being party in proceeding. The petitioner would be at liberty to file reply if already not filed and also put up their defence on point of maintainability or non-maintainability or limitation of proceeding under Section 28-A initiated by respondents. This Court finds that at this stage, writ petition need not be entertained. Needless to state here, petitioner would be at liberty to challenge any adverse orders passed by Sub- Divisional Officer. 5. Liberty to file application including a specific application objecting maintainability of petition. 6. Writ Petition stands disposed of with liberty as prayed for. (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) Mujaheed//