8_WP1008_26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1008 OF 2026 Sindhubai Baliram Chavan … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents Ms. Sneha Agrawal a/w. Ms. Shweta Rathod i/b. Elixir Legal Services for Petitioner. Ms. Pooja Patil, AGP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for Respondent No.6. CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026 P.C. : . Heard Ms.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Patil, learned AGP for the respondent - State authorities. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the Respondents to forthwith make necessary changes in the revenue records of the Petitioner's land situated at Barvai, Taluka - Panvel, District Raigad, thereby entering the name of the Petitioner, being the owner of the said land, in view of the acquisition proceedings being lapsed under the provisions of section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act; b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ/Order/Direction in the like nature of Article 226 of the Constitution of India; i. To hold and declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Respondent No. 2 vide award dated 30th October, 1964, in respect of the said land of the Petitioner has lapsed in view of the provision u/s. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and 1/3 MINAL SANDIP PARAB Digitally signed by MINAL SANDIP PARAB Date: 2026.09.09 19:10:53 +0530 8_WP1008_26.doc Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; ii. To hold and declare that impugned acquisition proceedings in respect of the Petitioner's notified land situated at Barvai, Taluka - Panvel, District - Raigad has deemed to have lapsed in view of the provisions under section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the said petition, the Respondents be restrained by an order of this Hon'ble Court from any manner transferring, alienating the possession of the said land of the Petitioner situated at Barvai, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad or any part thereof, to any other third party; d) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c) above; e) Cost of this Petition; f) For such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.” 3. We are surprised that the petitioner is seeking a declaration of lapsing of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 in respect of a land acquisition award passed as far back as on 30.10.1964. This is another case indicating that the apprehension expressed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in its judgement in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, that the position of law clarified in that judgement may lead to frivolous claims like the present one pertaining to acquisitions completed decades ago, coming true. 4. One of the prayers in this petition is a direction or a writ of mandamus to be issued to the respondent State authorities to make necessary changes in the revenue records. 5. The documents filed with this petition show that this petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.431 of 2023 for similar reliefs, which 2/3 8_WP1008_26.doc was withdrawn unconditionally as recorded in the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by this Court. 6. In the present petition, it is stated that since further documents are collected by the petitioner, the instant writ petition is filed. The only document that appears to have surfaced after unconditional withdrawal of the earlier writ petition is a response to a query made under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 7. We find this to be a typical petition of the petitioner seeking to rely upon irrelevant documents to somehow stake claim in respect of a piece of land, which appears to have been acquired decades ago. Even the said aspect is not clear, for the reason that the petitioner is unable to connect the land acquisition award dated 30.10.1964 with her claim in respect of the subject land. 8. This is evident from the documents brought to our notice by learned AGP in the form of exhibits ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. Exhibit ‘A’ is a photocopy of the 7/12 extract (revenue record) upon which the petitioner herself is relying. It pertains to land located in Gat No.99/1. Exhibits ‘B’ and ‘C’ are notifications issued for acquisition of land in Gat No.99. Thus, there does not appear to be any relation between the said documents and yet, reliance is placed upon the same to claim that there is either lapsing of acquisition or that the petitioner is entitled for ‘necessary corrections’ in the revenue record. 9. We find no substance in the present writ petition and it appears to be an attempt on the part of the petitioner to somehow engage the respondents in litigation so as to extract some relief for which there is no basis made out in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) 3/3 Minal Parab