Bombay High Court
Laxman Shripati Dalimkar And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Thro. The ... on 8 May, 2025
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2025:BHC-AS:21430-DB 902-WP-15411-2024-F.DOCX
Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15411 OF 2024
1] Laxman S/o. Shripati Dalimkar
Age:56 Years, Occu:-Agri
2] Mahadu S/o. Shripati Dalimakr
Age:- 53 years, Occu:- Agril,
3] Sonyabapu S/o. Shripati Dalimkar
Age 55 years, Occu:- Agril,
4] Balasaheb S/o. Shripati Dalimkar
Age 48 years, Occu:- Agril,
AMOL
PREMNATH 5] Popat @ Prashant S/o. Shripati Dalimkar
JADHAV
Age:- 45 Years, Occu:- Agril
Digitally signed by
AMOL PREMNATH
JADHAV
Date: 2025.05.09 6] Ramdas S/o. Gitaram Supekar
15:32:23 +0530
Age:- 67 years, Occu:- Agril,
7] Laxman S/o. Gitaram Supekar
Age:- 55 years, Occu:- Agril,
8] Jaysing S/o. Kisan Dalimkar
Age:- 59 years, Occu:- Agril,
All R/o. Babhulsar Khd. Tq.
Shirur, Dist. Pune. ...Petitioners
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through The Secretary Revenue &
Forest Department Mantralaya Mumbai-32
2] The Collector,
Pune-1, Dist. Pune
Page 1 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2025 10:21:23 :::
902-WP-15411-2024-F.DOCX
3] Special Land Acquisition Officer
No. 26
(Krishna Khore) @ Sub Divisional
Officer Pune,
New Administrative Building,
Opp to Vidhan Bhavan (First Floor)
Pune-1 Dist. Pune.
4] Sub-Divisional Officer
Old Z.P. Pune-1 Dist. 1 Pune
5] The District Water Conservator Officer
Soil and Water conservation Division
Yerwada Pune, Dist. Pune
6] Sub-Divisional Water Conservator Officer
Soil and Water Conservator Department
Shirur, Dist. Pune. ...Respondents
______________________________________________________
Mr Sahil Choudhary, i/b, Mr Ninad P Patil, for the Petitioners.
Ms S. S. Bhende, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
______________________________________________________
CORAM
M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED: 08 May 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT Per M. S. Sonak, J
1. Heard Mr Choudhary for the Petitioners and Ms Bhende,
the learned AGP, for all the Respondents.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the
request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the
parties.
902-WP-15411-2024-F.DOCX
3. The Petitioners contend that their property bearing Gut
Nos. 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31 in village Babulsar, Taluka
Shirur, Pune admeasuring 4 Hectares 74 Ares was acquired for
percolation tank without following the due process of law and
on the promise that compensation would be paid to them.
This was in the year 2004. The Petitioners contend that for the
last 21 years, no compensation has been paid to the
Petitioners because no acquisition proceedings were initiated
or concluded for all these years.
4. Ms Sneha Kisave Deovkate, Sub-Divisional Officer
("SDO"), Pune City Shirur Division, Pune (R4) has filed an
affidavit in this matter. The affidavit does not dispute the
Petitioners' contention about 4 Hectares 74 Ares of land being
taken over to construct the percolation tank. However, on
instructions, Ms Bhende, the learned AGP, states that the total
land acquired for this project is 4 Hectares 74 Ares, out of
which the Petitioners' land would be only 3 Hectares 41 Ares.
For the present, we do not go into this controversy and leave
this issue open.
5. The affidavit substantially does not dispute the
petitioners' contentions and states that the subject land has to
be acquired. For this, the SDO has entered into
correspondence with the acquiring body, i.e., Respondent No.
5. The affidavit states that various letters have been written to
the acquiring body to submit all the required documents for
the acquisition of the subject land. Finally, paragraph 6 of the
affidavit states that after receipt of all the necessary
documents from the acquiring body, further action will be
taken in accordance with law as per the Right to Fair
902-WP-15411-2024-F.DOCX
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the 2013 Act").
6. Thus, in effect, the Respondents admit to the taking over
of the Petitioners' land without following due process. The
Respondents also acknowledge that they must acquire this
land and compensate the Petitioners. However, a vague
statement is made that correspondence is going on between
the SDO and the acquiring body, and after the acquiring body
submits the necessary documents, steps for acquisition under
the 2013 Act will be taken.
7. All this vagueness, lethargy and bureaucratic delays are
not acceptable. Suppose the Petitioners' property has been
taken over without following the due process of law. In that
case, immediate steps should be taken to initiate and conclude
acquisition proceedings, and the compensation amount must
be paid to the Petitioners. This issue of submitting documents
is internal to the land acquisition authorities and the acquiring
department. Simply because, for almost 21 years, this has not
been done for reasons best known to the Respondents, the
Petitioners cannot be made to suffer any further.
8. Property rights may not be fundamental, but they are
constitutional and human rights. One of the essential facets of
the rights guaranteed by Article 300A is the expeditious
conclusion of acquisition proceedings and the payment of
compensation once a citizen is deprived of their property.
9. Mr Coudhary has submitted a chart giving details of the
area of land each of the Petitioners taken over by the
Respondents. Based on the ready reckoner, this chart indicates
902-WP-15411-2024-F.DOCX
that the basic minimum market value corresponding to 4
Hectares 74 Ares would be Rs. 62,92,350/-. The chart also
applies the multiplier under Section 26, the solatium under
Section 33 concludes that the compensation that would
reasonably become payable would be Rs. 2,51,69,400/-. Mr
Choudhary states that directions should be issued to
immediately pay this amount because even acquisition
proceedings are otherwise invariably delayed by the
Respondents.
10. Although, for the present, it is not appropriate to pay
almost Rs. 2.51 Crores directly, we agree with Mr Choudhary
that a case has been made out for directing the Respondents
to pay some interim compensation to the Petitioners. The
record shows, and there is no dispute, that the Petitioners'
land was taken over in 2004, and they are not in receipt of
any compensation to date.
11. Without prejudice to the controversy of whether the
Petitioners acquired land admeasures 4 Hectares 74 Ares or it
admeasures only 3 Hectares 41 Ares, we direct the
Respondents to pay to each of the Petitioners compensation in
terms of the following chart within six weeks from the date of
the uploading of this order.
A B C D E F
Basic (Minimum)
Acquired Basic Rates of Dry
Names as per Gut Market Value of
Sr No. Area Land as per Ready
Measurement Sheet No Acquired Area
Hector/R Reckoner Per Hector
(D x E = F )
Jaysing Kisan
24 ₹ 2,25,675
1 Dalimkar 0.17 1327500
2 Yedu Kisan Dalimkar 25 0.24 1327500 ₹ 3,18,600
3 Luma Rama Dalimkar 26 0.5 1327500 ₹ 6,63,750
902-WP-15411-2024-F.DOCX
Shripati Sadu
28 ₹ 4,64,625
4 Dalimkar 0.35 1327500
Luma Rama Dalimkar
29 ₹ 92,925
5 & others 0.07 1327500
Ramdas Gitaram
30 ₹ 16,72,650
6 Supekar & others 1.26 1327500
Popat Shripathi
31 ₹ 28,54,125
7 Dalimbkar 2.15 1327500
Total :- 4.74 ₹ 62,92,350
12. The above amount of Rs. 62,92,350/- must be deposited
in this Court on or before 30 June 2025 after giving advance
intimation to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Upon
deposit of this amount, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners
must furnish bank details of each Petitioner and the registry,
in terms of column F of the above chart, must transfer the
amounts to each Petitioner's account. The registry must
complete this exercise within 15 days of the learned Counsel
for the Petitioners furnishing the bank details.
13. The above amount is only tentative and may be
accepted by the Petitioners without prejudice to their
contention that they deserve higher compensation. This
amount must be adjusted against the amount the Land
Acquisition Officer will ultimately determine. The controversy
regarding the precise area of the Petitioners' land is also kept
open and not concluded.
14. The Respondents are jointly and severally directed to
initiate and conclude the acquisition proceedings within one
year from today. This will include awarding and paying
compensation to the Petitioners and other persons whose
lands have been acquired for this percolation tank project.
The SLAO must file compliance reports on 30 June 2025
902-WP-15411-2024-F.DOCX
[regarding the deposit of the above amount] and 30 June
2026 [regarding the conclusion of the acquisition
proceedings] with advance copy to the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
15. Ms Bhende, learned AGP, speaks about administrative
approvals and other bureaucratic procedures and requests us
to record her submission. We are least impressed by such
submissions. For the last 21 years, the Respondents have done
virtually nothing and deprived the Petitioners of compensation
after their lands were taken over without following the due
process of law. The payment of compensation or the
conclusion of acquisition proceedings should not now be
delayed on account of approvals and other bureaucratic
procedures. All such matters must be fast-tracked so that the
timeline we now indicate is adhered to. If there is a delay, the
Revenue Secretary must find out the officials responsible for
such a delay and fix the responsibility on such officials.
Because of the delay by such officials, the State cannot be
forced to pay higher compensation or interest at higher rates.
16. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without
any costs order. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy
of this order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
