[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
M/S Tapadia Construction Limited, ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 9 April, 2026
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
2026:BHC-NAG:5614-DB
8-WP-1408-2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1408 OF 2018
(M/s. Tapadia Construction Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Dr. R.S. Sirpurkar, Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. A.J. Gohokar, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3/State.
Mr. S.V. Sohoni, Counsel for respondent no.4.
.....
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
APRIL 9, 2026
Leave to amend prayer Clauses (1) to (3), is
granted.
Heard.
2] The Counsel is restricting her prayer to the
extent of reliefs sought, viz., prayer Clauses (1) to (3),
which read thus :
"1) direct the respondent no.2-Divisional
Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and
respondent no.3-District Collector, Akola, to act
in accordance of the decision of the respondent
no.1-State of Maharashtra dated 21.2.2012 at
Annexure - VIII and 22.8.2014 and 26/8/2025
at Annexure - XIII - A.
2) direct the respondent no.3-District Collector,
Akola to carry out the valuation of the land for
Community Centre, at the rates prevalent in the
year 2000 in accordance with the decision of
the State Government dated 21.2.2012 at
Annexure - VIII and 22.8.2014 and 26/8/2025
at Annexure - XIII - A.
3) direct the respondent no.3 to assess the land
for shopping centre at the rates prevalent in the
year 2010, in accordance with the order of the
State Government dated 21.2.2012 and
22.8.2014 and 26/8/2025 further be pleased to
direct the respondent no.3 to transfer the
possession of the land to the respondent no.4;
4) to 7) ....."
3] The Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the purpose of filing the petition will be served, if
respondent no.3 is directed to act in terms of order dated
26/8/2025 passed by respondent no.1. The said order is
passed in a review filed by respondent no.3. Respondent
no.1 dismissed the review, and in that sense, has affirmed
the order dated 21/2/2012.
4] The Counsel submits that by order dated
21/2/2012, respondent no.1 directed respondent no.3 to
assess the occupancy price of the land in question in
accordance with Government Resolutions dated
29/4/2008 and 21/10/2010. The grievance is that
respondent no.3 is not processing the file in accordance
with the aforesaid directions, and hence, the present
petition.
5] The learned A.G.P. submits that there is
some difficulty in complying with the order.
6] This argument will not be available to
respondent no.3, inasmuch as, the order dated
21/2/2012 has attained finality. That being so,
respondent no.3 is under an obligation to comply with the
said order.
7] We, accordingly, direct respondent no.3 to
take a decision in accordance with order dated
21/2/2012, unless the said order is challenged, and set
aside/modified by competent court. The decision shall be
taken as expeditiously as possible, and preferably, within
12 weeks from today.
8] So far as order dated 22/8/2014 is
concerned, we do not find that the said order was
challenged by respondent no.3, rather it appears that the
said order is a clarification given by respondent no.1,
which, if otherwise is binding on respondent no.3, shall
proceed to decide the issue in accordance with the said
clarification.
9] The petition is, accordingly, partly allowed
and disposed of. No order as to costs.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
Sumit
Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/04/2026 16:59:12
