Bombay High Court
Madhukar Jaywant Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru The Prin. ... on 3 April, 2025
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2025:BHC-AS:16168-DB
56-WP-15662-2022-FDOC (1).DOCX
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15662 OF 2022
Madhukar Jaywant Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
thr. The Prin. Secretary,
Irrigation Dept. & Ors ...Respondents
AMOL
_____________________________________________________________
PREMNATH
JADHAV Mr Machhindra A Patil, for the Petitioner.
Digitally signed by
AMOL
Ms MS Bane, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
PREMNATH
JADHAV
Date: 2025.04.08
Mr Divyesh Jain, i/b, Mr Nitin Gaware Patil, for the Respondent.
12:06:35 +0530
_____________________________________________________________
CORAM
M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED: 03 April 2025
Oral Judgment:- per M. S. Sonak, J
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. On 25 July 2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court made the
following order: -
"1. We have heard Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Ms. Diwan, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3/State and
Mr. Nitin Patil, learned counsel for respondent no. 6.
2. The petitioner is before the Court making a grievance
that the petitioner's land in question admeasuring 60
Gunthas being Gat No. 226 situated at Upalai, Taluka
Tasgaon, District Sangli was sought to be acquired for the
Takari Irrigation Project. It is submitted that the
possession of the land was taken over in March 2019 and
the value of the petitioner's land as also the fruit bearing
trees was subject matter of survey and assessment by the
Assistant Engineer when he made the following report:
Page 1 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2025 07:29:50 :::
56-WP-15662-2022-FDOC (1).DOCX
(Translation of a photocopy of a LETTER, typewritten in Marathi).
Exhibit - A
MAHARASHTRA KRISHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
PUNE-11
(Government of Maharashtra Undertaking)
Assistant Engineer, Grade-1, Takari Project and Planning
Sub Division - Tasgaon,
Taluka - Tasgaon, District - Sangli, Pin Code - 416 312.
Outward No. T. P. and P. Date: 11.03.2019
S/Admin/175/2019.
To,
Madhukar Jayawant Patil and Others.
Subject : Regarding purchasing your land situated at
Village - Upalavi for Takari Main Canal.
In connection with the aforesaid subject, you are informed that,
your land admeasuring approximately 60 Gunthas from out of the
land bearing Gat No. 226 is going to be acquired for Takari Main
Canal. However, the JMC and JMP in respect of Village - Upalavi
have not yet been received by this Office. There are 153 Mango
trees and 17 Custard Apple trees standing in the land to be acquired
and the approximate valuation thereof comes to Rs.84,91,648/-.
Presently, the valuation for acquisition of land (trees and land)
comes to approximately Rs.1,16,36,061/-. The said amount for
acquisition of land will be paid as early as possible after the
approval therefor is received from the Collector.
(Signature Illegible)
Assistant Engineer, Grade-1,
Takari Project and Planning Subdivision,
Tasgaon."
3. It is submitted that there is also a panchnama of the
trees, a copy of which is annexed at page 20 of the paper
book. Our attention is also drawn to a certificate which
is jointly signed by the Assistant Engineer, Grade-I, Mr.
V.S. Kamble, Assistant, Tahsildar, Tasgaon, Village Kamgar
Talathi, Village U[alavi, Taluka Tasgaon which is to the
following effect referring to the compensation of
Page 2 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2025 07:29:50 :::
56-WP-15662-2022-FDOC (1).DOCX
Rs.2,12,29,120/- proposed to be paid to the petitioner:
(Translation of a photocopy of a CERTIFICATE, typewritten in Marathi).
CERTIFICATE
Name of Work : Regarding paying compensation for the orchard
standing in the land bearing Gat No. 226, situated
at Village - Uplavi, Taluka - Tasgaon, District -
Sangli, acquired for Takari Main Canal K.M.
137/710 to 140/880.
The total valuation amount of the Project Affected Farmer
(Madhukar Jayawnat Patil) mentioned in the said proposal
is Rs. 2,12,29,120/- (in words - Rupees Two Crores Twelve
Lac Twenty Nine Thousand One Hundred Twenty only) and
calculation of the said valuation amount is proper and fair.
Therefore, this office does not have any objection to receive
the said amount by the farmer concerned. Hence, it is
recommended to grant sanction.
Recommended for sanction,
(Signature Illegible)
Assistant Engineer, Grade-1,
Takari Project and Planning Subdivision,
Tasgaon.
Prepared by :
(Signature Illegible)
[Shri V. S. Kamble]
[Illegible] Assistant.
(Signature Illegible) (Signature Illegible)
Village Kamgar Talathi, Tahasildar, Tasgaon,
Village - Upalavi, Taluka - Tasgaon. District - Sangli."
4. Mr. Patil has submitted that although compensation
of the land has been arrived at, however, till date no
award is passed, when the petitioner indisputedly is
landless since almost about 5 years. Mr. Patil submits
that the petitioner is an agriculturist. He has severely
suffered. His valuable rights of land as guaranteed under
Page 3 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2025 07:29:50 :::
56-WP-15662-2022-FDOC (1).DOCX
Article 300A of the Constitution stand breached, as the
possession of his land is already taken over without
following the due procedure in law. It is submitted that
the petitioner is in a situation that no compensation has
been paid despite all the formalities in that regard beingn
completed.
5. Mr. Patil has drawn our attention to the reply affidavit
filed on behalf of respondent no. 6, wherein respondent
no. 6 purports to dispute the aforesaid joint
certification/documents, in regard to number of trees.
He submits that there is nothing on record, to show any
material contrary to what was certified earlier by the
several officers, as also the panchnama. Mr. Patil would
also submit that it would not lie in the mouth of the
acquiring body to dispute any of these documents when
SLAO has taken possession of the petitioner's land on the
basis of such certificates and documents and the
petitioner, who is a poor agriculturist, being informed of
such compensation as proposed to be paid to the
petitioner.
6. It is Mr. Patil's submission that such stand on the part
of respondent no. 6 is not only untenable in law but also
highly inappropriate and unacceptable, as there is no
privity whatsoever between the petitioner and
respondent no. 6 who is only the beneficiary of the
acquisition. It is his submission that on such plea taken
by respondent no. 6 in the affidavit and without any
supporting material whatsoever, no credence can be
given to what has been said by respondent no. 6. It is
submitted that the affidavit of respondent no. 6 needs to
be discarded in totality.
7. Insofar as the State Government is concerned, we find
that Ms. Diwan, learned AGP is helpless inasmuch as
there appears to be a lapse on the part of the office of
Government Pleader in communicating the order dated
Page 4 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2025 07:29:50 :::
56-WP-15662-2022-FDOC (1).DOCX
24 February, 2023 to the concerned respondent, hence no
reply affidavit is filed. We need to note the said order
passed by this Court, as there is complete non-compliance
of the said on the part of respondent nos. 1 to 3, which
reads thus:
"1. The matter is mentioned, not on board by the
learned counsel for the petitioner for seeking
circulation of the Writ Petition. He states that an
Affidavit-in-reply is not filed by the State
Government till date. Statement is accepted.
Affidavit in Reply shall be filed within two weeks
from today with a copy to be served upon the
petitioner's advocate simultaneously. Rejoinder, if
any, shall be filed within one week thereafter.
2. Place the matter on board for admission on
rd
3 April, 2023."
8. It is almost a year and six months that the aforesaid
order was passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
and till date the order stands not complied. There is also
no application filed by the State seeking extension for
compliance of the order. In these circumstances, as to
why we should now permit respondent nos. 1 to 3 to file
reply affidavit, is the question. The Court in fact would
be required to proceed on the ground that respondent
nos. 1 to 3 are not inclined to file reply affidavit and
proceed on the basis that these respondents have
accepted the case of the petitioner as pleaded in the
petition.
9. In the present case, we are more than satisfied that
the petitioner's valuable rights, as guaranteed under
Article 300A of the Constitution read with Articles 14 and
21, are taken away in the manner not known to law
inasmuch as despite 5 years of the possession of land
being taken away, thereby rendering the petitioner
landless, which was the very livelihood of the petitioner,
Page 5 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2025 07:29:50 :::
56-WP-15662-2022-FDOC (1).DOCX
the petitioner is left high and dry without payment of
compensation. We may observe that the State although
would have all the powers recognizing the doctrine of
eminent domain to acquire the land, however, it cannot
be contrary to the law. In these circumstances, the
interest of justice would require us to pass the following
order:
ORDER
(i) We direct respondent nos. 1 to 3 to
deposit in this Court an amount of
Rs.2,12,29,120/- along with interest @15% p.a.
from 19 March, 2019. Let such amount without
any further extension be deposited in this Court
within a period of 10 days from today.
(ii) We were inclined to impose cost on the
State Government for not complying with the
orders dated 24 February, 2023 passed by this
Court, however, we refrain from imposing any
cost at this stage of the proceedings and/or to
hold the concerned accountable for breach of
the order passed by this Court. In this regard,
we shall pass such appropriate order at the
further stage of the proceedings.
10. We, accordingly, adjourn the proceedings to be
taken up at 8 August, 2024 (F.O.B.).
3. After that this Court made orders dated 8 August 2024, 9 August
2024, 30 August 2024 and 6 September 2024.
4. The order of 6 September 2024 is important, and therefore, is
transcribed below for the convenience of reference: -
56-WP-15662-2022-FDOC (1).DOCX
"1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the backdrop of our
earlier orders and more particularly, the orders dated 25 July 2024, 09
August 2024 and 30
August 2024.
2. At the outset, we may observe that the petitioner is ready and
willing to execute a sale deed in favour of respondent No.6 / Executive
Engineer, Krishna Valley Takari Pump House Division-1, Devrashtre, Tq.
Kadegaon District Sangli. It is not in dispute that alongwith the petitioner,
there are names of other persons appearing in the occupancy column of
the 7/12 extract of land in question bearing Gut No.226 of Village
Tasgaon. The petitioner has agreed that the consent of all such persons /
occupants shall be obtained before the execution of the registered sale deed and
be submitted to respondent No.6. The petitioner is also agreeable to
execute necessary indemnity bond in favour of respondent No.6.
3. Mr. Macchindra Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that such exercise can be undertaken as expeditiously as possible and in
any event within a period of 15 days from today, so that all the
formalities to transfer clear title of the land in favour of respondent No.6
is completed within such period. Needless to observe that the respondents
would also cooperate in execution of the sale deed and its registration
which needs to be undertaken before the Sub-Registrar, Tasgaon, District
Sangli.
4. Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 on
instruction stated that respondent No.6 shall pay an amount of Rs.
22,17,000/- alongwith interest at 15% per annum with effect from 23
August 2020 upto 23 August 2024 which according to him is totaling to
an amount of Rs.34,78,868/-. Such amount pertains to land Adm. 0.6H of
Gut No.226, payable to the petitioner and which would be paid on the
date of execution of a registered sale deed by a pay order.
5. Considering such consensus as arrived between the parties, respondent
No.3 / The Collector, Sangli or the Competent Revnue Authority under
him would be required to take appropriate steps of making necessary changes
in the revenue records in regard to Gut No.226 and incorporate the name
of respondent No.6 "Executive Engineer, Krishna Valley Takari Pump
House Division-1". This be undertaken as expeditiously as possible and
within a period of two months from a copy of the sale deed being
presented before the Collector Competent Officer.
6. Insofar as the amount in regard to the compensation qua the trees and
subject matter of our order dated 25 July 2024 being an amount of Rs.
56-WP-15662-2022-FDOC (1).DOCX
3,83,98,534/- is concerned and which is deposited in this Court shall be
permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner after completion of all the
aforesaid formalities and by appropriate orders to be passed in that regard
on the adjourned date of hearing.
7. Thus, we leave the parties to complete the aforesaid formalities in
regard to the sale deed.
8. Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil state that his statements are on instructions received
by him from the Competent Officer Mr. Rajan Davani, Executive
Engineer.
9. We appreciate the fair stand taken by respondent No. 6 and the
learned counsel Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil.
10. List the proceedings "for compliance" on 19 September 2024. To
be listed on the "Supplementary Board"."
5. Since the parties were in the process of complying with the
modalities noted in the previous orders, the matter was adjourned on
19 September 2024 and 25 October 2024. On 25 October 2024, the
praecipe for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 6 September
2024 was also disposed of.
6. Today, Mr Machhindra Patil the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr Divyesh Jain, holding for Mr Nitin Gaware Patil state
that modalities in terms of our order dated 6 September 2024 have
been duly complied with. They state that the parties have executed the
necessary sale deeds on 4 November 2024.
7. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the parties' submit that this
Petition could be disposed of by recording the above compliance and
permitting the Petitioner to withdraw the amount of Rs.3,83,98,534/-
(Three Crores Eighty Three Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundred
Thirty Four) which is deposited by Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 6 in this
Court.
8. In fact, in paragraph 6 of our order dated 6 September 2024, we
had clarified that this amount of Rs.3,83,98,534/- (Three Crores Eighty
56-WP-15662-2022-FDOC (1).DOCX
Three Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Four) shall be
permitted to be withdrawn by the Petitioner after completion of all the
formalities and by appropriate orders to be passed in that regard on the
adjourned date of hearing.
9. Now that the learned Counsel for the parties' state that all
necessary formalities including execution of sale deed have been
completed, we see no difficulty in allowing the Petitioner to withdraw
the above amount.
10. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the
parties, this Petition is disposed of. The Registry is directed to transfer
this amount to Rs.3,83,98,534/- (Three Crores Eighty Three Lakhs
Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Four) together interest, if
any, that shall have accrued on this amount into the Petitioner's bank
account. Mr Macchhindra Patil states that the details of Petitioner's
bank account will be furnished to the Registry within two weeks from
today, and after that, the Registry should, within a period of two weeks
thereafter, transfer this amount.
11. The Petition is disposed of with the above directions without
order for costs.
12. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. We
appreciate the fair approach of the learned Counsel for the parties in
resolving the dispute raised in this Petition.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
