Bombay High Court
Manik Chanbasappa Rachetti Died Thr Lrs ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 7 August, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AUG:21753-DB
WP-9492-2023++.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 WRIT PETITION NO. 9492 OF 2023
ISHWRAPPA KANTAPPA MALANG
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9875 OF 2025
SIDRAM CHANMALAPPA VADRE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9876 OF 2025
MANIK CHANBASAPPA RACHETTI DIED THR LRS PANDIT AND
OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9874 OF 2025
PANDURANG SAMBHAJI SURWASE DIED THR LRS RAJENDRA
PANDURANG SURWASE @ SURWANSHI AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
....
Mr. Shashikiran N. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for the Respondents - State
Mr. Amol Patale, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in all Writ
Petitions (Competent Authority)
Mr. Arun V. Rakh, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in Writ Petition
No.9492 of 2023
....
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 07.08.2025
1 of 7
(( 2 )) WP-9492-2023++
ORDER (Per: Y. G. Khobragade, J.) :
-
1. In these petitions, similar issues are raised by the
petitioners and we find that on earlier occasion, this Court has
disposed of the petitions, issuing specific directions that have partly
addressed the concerns raised by the petitioners herein.
2. In all these Writ Petitions, the Petitioners are the owners
of their respective lands situated at Omerga, Taluka Omerga, District
Osmanabad and village Bosaga, Taluka Lohara, District Osmanabad.
Respondent No.3 has acquired their lands for road widening of
National Highway No.9 (Old), 65 (New) in the year 2014. The
Respondent Authority has passed the award, but no statutory
benefits, such as, interest and solatium have been granted. Being
aggrieved by the said award, the Petitioners had filed arbitration
proceedings before the Arbitrator. Accordingly, the Arbitrator passed
the award. However, the statutory benefits, interest and solatium
under Section 23(1)(A)(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, were not granted to the Petitioners. The issue involved in
the present Writ Petitions are no more res integra as per the order
dated 17.07.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.240 of
2023.
2 of 7
(( 3 )) WP-9492-2023++
3. On 17.07.2025, this Court passed a common order in writ
petition no. 240 of 2023 (Rajendra Namdev Patil and others Vs. The
Competent Authority, Land Acquisition and another ) with connected
writ petitions, as under :-
"1. When these petitions are called out for
consideration, there is no serious dispute about the fact
that the issues raised in these petitions are covered by
earlier order passed by this Court in similar matters. On
26.06.2025, this Court passed a common order in Writ
Petition No.12512/2019 (Trimbak Aadhar Bhamre and
Anr. Vs. The Union of India and others with connected
writ petitions) granting relief similar to the relief claimed
in this petition.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that, they are
entitled to solatium and interest on the compensation
amount in accordance with principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs.
Tarsem Singh and Ors.; (2019) 9 SCC 304.
3. In the said order passed in Trimbak Aadhar Bhamre
Vs. the Union of India (supra), while considering
identical contention, this Court held as follows :
"5. This Court, at the Principal Seat, in Writ
Petition No.11932 of 2019 (Hiraman Namdeo
Lonare and others Vs. The Union of India and
Others) and a group of cases, vide judgment dated
08.04.2025, recorded that the parties agree that
the main issue involved in the Petitions was
covered by the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra).
6. In view of the application made by the NHAI
in Miscellaneous Application Diary No.2572 of
2020 in Civil Appeal No.7086 of 2019, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had passed an order on
30.07.2021, clarifying that the words "(1A) and"
appearing in paragraph 41 of the judgment dated
3 of 7
(( 4 )) WP-9492-2023++
19.09.2019, be deleted. Accordingly, the relief
that was granted, was in terms of Section 23 and
28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not
under Section 23(1A).
7. In Hiraman Namdeo Lonare (supra), the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
04.02.2025 (supra), was also cited. It was
observed by this Court that the NHAI would
compute and pay the Petitioners, solatium and
interest in accordance with the principles laid
down in the said matters, within three months of
the uploading of the order dated 08.04.2025.
8. Thereafter, the judgment was delivered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.02.2025,
rejecting all the Review Petitions. Neither the
Petitioners, nor the NHAI, have ever challenged
the Arbitral Awards before any Court.
9. With regard to the objection on the
maintainability of these Petitions, an identical
issue was raised before this Court at the Principal
Seat in Writ Petition No.9608 of 2023 (Kisanlal
Bairudas Jain Vs. Union of India and others) and
group of cases. By judgment dated 09.05.2025,
this Court referred to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd
Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing
Authority and Ors, 2023 (384) ELT 8 (SC) and
delivered a verdict concluding that the objection to
the maintainability of the Petitions on the ground
of an alternate remedy, is overruled.
10. We direct the Competent Authority to
compute and pay all these Petitioners, solatium
and interest in accordance with the principles
enunciated in Tarsem Singh (supra), within three
months from today.
11. As like the directions set out in Hiraman
(supra), we record that if the payment of such
compensation is delayed or is wrongly concluded
on assumptions and presumptions, we would hold
4 of 7
(( 5 )) WP-9492-2023++
the Officers of the Competent Authority,
responsible for the delayed payment or insufficient
payment and in which case, if the interest for
delayed payment or insufficient payment is
computed, in any proceeding brought to this Court
or before whichever authority, such interest
component or insufficient payment, will be
recovered from the salaries of the Officers who are
responsible for such erroneous calculations.
12. Insofar as the contention of the learned
Advocate for the NHAI, that there ought not to be
a double payment with reference to the loss of
easementary rights at the rate of 10%, since that
issue is not addressed to the Court in these
Petitions by the Petitioners and since the Arbitral
Award has not been challenged by the NHAI, we
do not have to express any view on this aspect.
13. In view of the above, all these Writ Petitions
before us are disposed off in the light of Tarsem
Singh (supra) and the above referred orders."
4. We are of the opinion that these petitions can also be
allowed and disposed of in view of the above quoted order passed in
petition No.12512/2019 (Trimbak Aadhar Bhamre and Anr. Vs. The
Union of India and others with connected writ petitions) granting
relief similar to the relief claimed in this petition.
5. It is further pointed out by the contesting respondents
that this Court may consider directing the petitioners to produce all
relevant documents before the competent authorities for verification
when the competent authorities undertake any exercise of
5 of 7
(( 6 )) WP-9492-2023++
computation of amounts payable to the petitioners towards solatium
and interest in accordance with the principles noted in the above
quoted order of this Court. It is further submitted that even if this
Court were to pass an order in favour of the petitioners in the same
manner as earlier orders have been passed in the case of similarly
situated petitioners, it may be observed that such payments shall be
subject to challenges raised, if any, under sections 34 and 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of
the contesting respondents, we are inclined to allow these petitions in
the following manner :-
(a) In the light of above, these petitions are allowed by
directing the competent authorities to compute and pay to the
petitioners solatium and interest in accordance with the principles
enunciated in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem
Singh and others (supra) within a period of six (6) months from
today.
(b) It is made clear that the petitioners shall assist the
competent authorities by producing all relevant documents and upon
verification of the same, the competent authorities shall proceed
6 of 7
(( 7 )) WP-9492-2023++
further. It is also clarified that payments made pursuant to the
directions given herein-above, shall be subject to the challenges, if
any, raised under sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
(c) In the light of the observations made herein above, it is further
made clear that if any of the parties are aggrieved by the quantum
and computation carried out by the competent authority while
carrying out the directions given herein above, the remedy of Section
3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 would be available to such
aggrieved party in accordance with law. It is further made clear that
the competent Authority while implementing the directions given
herein above shall give reasonable hearing to all stake holders.
7. Writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ MANISH PITALE, J. ]
SMS
7 of 7
