1 11.wp.3356.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3356 OF 2026 Ashok Anandrao Kourase and others .Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mrs Shilpa Giratkar (Giripunje), Advocate for the petitioner/s Mr N. S. Rao, AGP for respondents/state Mr C. S. Kaptan, Sr. Adv. assisted by Ms Radhika Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.10 CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATED : 24 th AUGUST , 2026 . Heard. 2. In the present writ petition, the following are the prayers made by the petitioners. “i) by issuing a Writ of Certiorari, Order or Direction, this Hon'ble Court may quash and set aside the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the respondent No.3- Collector, Chandrapur (Annexure-L) being illegal; ii) by an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction direct the respondent No.3-Collector, Chandrapur to take action against respondent no.10 as they have constructed new road of 10 ft. by taking away the 5 ft. agricultural lands of both sides of the road from the village Wadha to Tadali without acquiring the said agricultural lands and granting compensation to the agriculturists; iii) stay the effect, operation and implementation of the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the respondent No.3-Collector, Chandrapur (Annexure-L) and further stay to the construction of road, during the pendency of present petition; iv) grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (iii) above; v) grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in 2026:BHC-NAG:11006-DB 2 11.wp.3356.2026.odt the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.” 3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the while laying down the pipeline by the respondent No.10- Company the lands of the petitioners were damaged. It is further stated that, due to leakage from the pipeline at certain places, the problem of waterlogging has occurred, as a result of which the lands in question get affected and some of it has become uncultivable. Further, a grievance has also been raised regarding the non-payment of rent. 4. Whereas, Shri C. S. Kaptan, learned Senior Advocate submits that after the agreement, the petitioner No.1 accepted Rs.2,20,000/- an odd amount whereas, Ms Giratkar, learned Advocate for the petitioners is disputing the said fact. 5. Learned Senior Advocate further makes a statement that respondent No.10 is agreed to pay similar amount to all other petitioners i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 to 6. 6. Be that as it may, the basic grievance of the petitioners is relating to damages, which this Court cannot determine in this writ petition, in view of the fact that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the present petition including how much land is affected because of the pipeline or the extent of area affected because of waterlogging and the losses caused to the crops or the land because of above referred reasons etc. 3 11.wp.3356.2026.odt 7. Ms Giratkar, learned counsel for the petitioner points out the judgment of the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 151 of 2011 dated 06/12/2012 and argued that the learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration the prayer of the petitioners for damages and the rent. 8. Having gone through the said judgment it is apparent on the face of the record that the suit filed by the petitioners was not for the damages but it was for the declaration and permanent injunction. 9. In the circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prayer for the damages was not considered cannot be accepted. 10. In view of the above referred reasons recorded by us, we are of the opinion that in the present matter to claim the reliefs as sought in the present writ petition, the evidence will have to lead. Furthermore, the respondent No.10 is not the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India to maintain the present petition. 11. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy as available under the law for claiming damages and other reliefs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. [RAJNISH R. VYAS, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.] Namrata Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/08/2026 18:42:35