1 9-wp-9094-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9094 OF 2026 Vikas Ramvilas Mundhada and Others …Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others …Respondents ****** Dr. Ramdas Sabban a/w. Mr. Rohit Chitiken, Mr. Pravin Sabban and Mr. Shrikant Kompelli, for the Petitioners. Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni a/w. Ms. Sweta Shah and Mr. Shreyas Z., for Respondent No. 4- PMC. Mr. B.U. Samant, Addl.G.P. a/w. Mr. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP, for the State. ****** CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. In pursuance of order dated 25.08.2026, the respondent No. 3, Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 15, Pune (SLAO), has sworn an affidavit dated 10.10.2026, and the same is tendered before this Court. The said affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is taken on record. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that despite the land acquisition award being passed on 27.04.2026 determining the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners, Vishal Parekar ….1 VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2026.09.11 17:46:26 +0530 2 9-wp-9094-2026.doc the same has not been disbursed in their favour in light of the stand taken by the respondents as reflected in the impugned letter dated 02.07.2026. 3. It is submitted that the compensation amount is being held back on the ground that a remark in the revenue record (7/12 extract) refers to the use of the subject land for non-agricultural purposes, and in that context, the obligation to deposit a certain amount is wholly irrelevant and is being used as an excuse by the respondent authorities to deprive the petitioners of their rightful claim towards compensation. 4. In the earlier orders passed by this Court, it was noted that a strong prima facie case was indeed made out by the petitioners in their favour, but an opportunity was given to the respondents to justify the stand taken in the impugned letter dated 02.07.2026. 5. In the latest affidavit in reply of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 taken on record today, a reference is made to the provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, particularly Section 63 thereof, to contend that in the event the subject land has been utilized for non-agricultural purposes, a substantial amount Vishal Parekar ….2 3 9-wp-9094-2026.doc towards penalty is leviable. It is submitted that unless respondent No. 3 (SLAO) receives a clarification from the concerned department of the State as to whether any such liability is found in respect of the subject land, disbursal of the compensation amount cannot be permitted. 6. We are of the opinion that the stand taken in the reply affidavit and the reasons stated in the impugned letter dated 02.07.2026 to hold back the amount of monetary compensation payable to the petitioners are wholly unsustainable, and the respondents have not been able to justify the impugned action. 7. The respondent authorities cannot be permitted to hold back monetary compensation due and payable to the petitioners /landowners on some imaginary or apprehended liability that may arise in the context of the subject land. The stand taken by the respondents has unnecessarily delayed the disbursement of the monetary compensation to the petitioners, and therefore, we are inclined to allow the writ petition. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as follows: Vishal Parekar ….3 4 9-wp-9094-2026.doc (a) This High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order, thereby to quash & set aside the impugned letter dt. 02-07-2026 issued by the Respondent SLAO No. 15, Pune to the Petitioners, with further direction to the Respondent SLAO No. 15, Pune to forthwith pay the compensation amount of Rs. Rs.2,40,97,139/- & Rs. 53,18,202/- with appropriate statutory interest thereon u/S. 80 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 for delayed payment period. 9. Needless to say, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law if at all there is any amount due and payable in the context of the apprehension expressed before this Court. Such steps, if any, obviously will have to be taken strictly in accordance with law. 10. The aforesaid amounts in terms of prayer clause (a) shall be disbursed in favour of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Vishal Parekar ….4