1 8-wp-6348-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6348 OF 2026 Baban Tukaram Khade …Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others …Respondents Mr. M.D. Ramteke, for the Petitioner Ms. Mrunal Tavade (through VC) i/b. Little & Co., for Respondent No. 2- MIDC. Ms. T.N. Bhatia, AGP, for the State. CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent State authorities. The respondent MIDC is also represented by counsel. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking a declaration that acquisition pertaining to the petitioner's land in Gat No. 76, admeasuring 1 Hectare 07 R at Village Vanjarwadi, Taluka Baramati, District Pune, has lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act, 2013). On that basis, the petitioner further prays for quashing and setting aside of the land acquisition award. Vishal Parekar ….1 VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2026.09.02 18:41:46 +0530 2 8-wp-6348-2026.doc 3. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that acquisition pertaining to similarly situated land in adjoining Gat No. 75 was withdrawn by the respondent State authorities. In this context, reliance is placed on notification dated 14.10.2024 issued by the respondent State, recording that the land in Gat No. 75 was not required for industrial area and, accordingly, the acquisition was withdrawn. On this basis, it was submitted that the petitioner has been discriminated against and, therefore, the present writ petition ought to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the learned AGP relies upon the affidavit-in- reply of respondent No. 4, Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati (SDO). In the reply affidavit, a distinction is made between the acquisition proceedings undertaken for land situated in Gat Nos. 75 and 76. Reliance is placed on documents annexed to the reply affidavit to contend that the argument of discrimination is not sustainable. It is further submitted that the documents on record clearly demonstrate that Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and there is no question of lapsing of acquisition. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. Vishal Parekar ….2 3 8-wp-6348-2026.doc 6. We find that in the reply affidavit of respondent No. 4 SDO, sufficient details are placed on record to demonstrate how the lands situated in Gat Nos. 75 and 76 can be said to be distinct and separate. In paragraphs 7 to 11 of the reply affidavit, the respondent No. 4 SDO has placed on record facts which demonstrate that the procedure for acquisition of land in Gat No. 75 was not completed, and that during the pendency of the acquisition proceedings, the State authorities came to the conclusion that the land in Gat No. 75 was not required. This was a stage where the land acquisition award was not even passed, and in that backdrop, the aforementioned notification dated 14.10.2024 was issued withdrawing from acquisition as regards land in Gat No. 75. 7. As opposed to the said position regarding Gat No. 75, as regards the land of the petitioner in Gat No. 76, the acquisition proceedings culminated in award dated 02.03.1992. The petitioner had consented to the acquisition, and accordingly, an agreement was executed, and compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,450/- was paid to the petitioner. According to the respondent State authorities, possession of the subject land was also taken. The fact that the amount was received by the petitioner is not denied. The respondent No. 4 SDO has placed on Vishal Parekar ….3 4 8-wp-6348-2026.doc record copies of panchanama and Taba Pavti dated 02.03.1992 to demonstrate that even possession of the subject land was taken. 8. It appears that the petitioner claims to be in physical possession of the subject land in Gat No. 76. This is a disputed question of fact. In any case, since one of the requirements contemplated under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 pertaining to receipt of compensation is admitted by the petitioner, this cannot be said to be a case of lapsing of acquisition. The position of law in this regard is clarified by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. Applying the said position of law to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the case of lapsing of acquisition is not made out by the petitioner. 9. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present writ petition, and accordingly, it is dismissed. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Vishal Parekar ….4