bipin prithiani 1 12-wp-9402.26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9402 OF 2026 Suresh Mohanlal Sharma & Ors. … Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondent ****** Ms. Pradnya Talekar a/w Ms. Madhavi Ayyappan i/by Talekar and Associates for Petitioners. Ms. Neha S. Bhide, G. P. a/w Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. G. P. and Mr. S. P. Kamble, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3-State. Mr. Kedar B. Dighe for Respondent No.2-PCMC. ****** CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. : . In this petition although formal notice was not issued, respondent No.1 and 3 are represented by the learned AGP and respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation is also represented by Counsel. 2. As a matter of fact, respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation has filed its reply affidavit in this petition. 3. Considering the contents of the writ petition and the documents filed therewith, as also the reply affidavit placed on record, it is an undisputed position on facts that the lands belonging to the petitioners to the extent stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, were utilized by the respondent No.2-Municipal bipin prithiani 2 12-wp-9402.26.doc Corporation for construction of road. Till date, acquisition proceedings for determination and payment of quantum of compensation have not been initiated and the petitioners in this backdrop, have prayed for a direction to the respondents to acquire the said piece of land utilized for construction of the road and to determine compensation, as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013). 4. Although, it is not disputed by the respondents that the said piece of land has been utilized for construction of road some time in the years 2014 to 2016, the respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation claims that it had deposited between 2008 and 2013, a total amount of Rs.7,01,80,362/- with the respondent No.3- Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), for the purpose of compensating land owners concerned with the entire stretch of the road construction exercise. It is claimed that some of the land owners were also compensated by way of TDR/FSI. But, it is an admitted position that the petitioners in this petition have not been compensated at all, for utilization of their lands for construction of the road. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2- Municipal Corporation submits that the aforesaid amount deposited with the respondent No.3-SLAO ought to be taken into consideration while passing order in the present writ petition. It is claimed that, if at all, directions are to be issued for acquisition of bipin prithiani 3 12-wp-9402.26.doc the land, determination of compensation and payment thereof to the petitioners, the market value of the land as in the year 2014 should be assessed and that should be made the basis for payment of compensation. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this Court, in the interest of justice, ought to direct the acquisition of the land and payment of compensation, as per the value of the land as on today and also consider issuing direction for payment of damages/rental compensation from the year 2014 till the passing of award in pursuance of the land acquisition proceedings, that would be initiated. 7. In support of the said proposition, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Madishetti Bala Ramul vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (2007) 9 SCC 650. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we find that in the face of the admitted position on facts, it can be said that the right of the petitioners to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India has been violated. The said right is no longer a fundamental right, but in various judgments of the Supreme Court, including the judgment in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors., (2024) 10 SCC 533, the said right has been recognized as a valuable human right, which cannot be casually trampled upon by the authorities. bipin prithiani 4 12-wp-9402.26.doc 9. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has recognized 7 sub-rights that constitute the right to property, which include the right to notice, the right to be heard, the right to a reasoned decision, the duty to acquire only for public purpose, the right of restitution or fair compensation, the right to an efficient and expeditious process and the right of conclusion. 10. We are of the opinion that even if the contention raised on behalf of the respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation is to be taken into account, to the effect that the petitioners had notice about utilization of their lands for construction of road in the light of joint measurement exercise undertaken, such a notice would not satisfy the specific sub-right recognized in the said judgment of the Supreme Court, in as much as, the said notice had to be followed up with appropriate action for initiating acquisition for public purpose and determination of just, fair and reasonable compensation. In the present case, the right to fair compensation, the right to efficient and expeditious process and the right to conclusion have been blatantly violated. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition. 11. We are also of the opinion that for the time period between 2014 to the point in time, when the award shall be passed by the Competent Authority, in the light of the directions that we intend to issue in this writ petition, the petitioners are entitled to damages/rental compensation, as per the policy of the State and in any case, in terms of the position of law indicated by the Supreme bipin prithiani 5 12-wp-9402.26.doc Court in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul vs. Land Acquisition Officer (supra). 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms : (a) Respondent No.3-SLAO shall initiate the process of acquisition and determination of quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners for the subject land as on today, under the provisions of the Act of 2013, at the earliest and in any case, the process shall be initiated within four weeks from today. (b) The land acquisition proceedings shall be completed and award shall be rendered within 9 months from today. (c) The quantum of compensation determined in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2013, along with all statutory benefits, shall be paid to the petitioners within four weeks of the passing of the said award. (d) The petitioners shall have liberty to claim enhancement of compensation, if they so desire, in accordance with law. (e) For the period between 2014 till the passing of the award, as directed hereinabove, the petitioners shall be paid amount towards damages/rental compensation, in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The assessment of the quantum of such amount shall be undertaken and completed within six weeks of rendering of the award and the amount shall be disbursed to the petitioners within four weeks of such determination. bipin prithiani 6 12-wp-9402.26.doc (f) Needless to say, the financial burden of the said amounts shall be borne by the respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation, which has undertaken the exercise of construction of road. 13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 14. It is made clear that the directions issued hereinabove, while allowing the writ petition, are restricted to the petitioners before this Court. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2026.09.11 11:01:29 +0530