[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shahadeo Dagadu Mete And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 17 February, 2026
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2026:BHC-AUG:6920-DB
1 WP13381.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 13381 OF 2025
1. Shahadeo s/o Dagadu Mete,
Age : 63 years, Occu.: Agril.,
2. Ananda s/o Dagadu Mete,
Age : 66 years, Occu.: Agril.,
3. Mahadeo s/o Dagadu Mete,
Age : 57 years, Occu.: Agril.,
All R/o. Wahira, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.
4. Kamalbai Raghunath Kharade,
Age : 60 years, Occu.: Agril.,
5. Namabai Shamrao Kharade,
Age : 76 years, Occu.: Agril.,
No. 4 and 5, R/o Pimpalgaon Dani,
Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. ...Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Planning Department (E.G.S.),
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Chh. Sambhajinagar Division,
Chh. Sambhajinagar.
3. The District Collector, Beed.
4. The Deputy Collector, (E.G.S.), Beed.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Patoda, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed.
2 WP13381.2025.odt
6. The Executive Engineer,
Beed Irrigation Division, Beed.
7. The Sub-Divisional Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Sub Division, Patoda,
Dist. Beed. ...Respondents
..........
Mr. Tushar Shinde h/f Mr. C. H. Shinde - Advocate for Petitioners
Mr. S. B. Narwade - AGP for Respondent/State
............
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 05TH FEBRUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] : -
"STRONG FOUNDATION OF GOOD STATE ARE GOOD LAWS &
GOOD ARMS" : -
. This phrase is not history; it is engineering. "Good Arms" means
capable Executives and Bureaucrats, meaning able servants who
implement laws effectively. "Good Laws" means structure, standards,
discipline and rules followed & obeyed in all circumstances. This builds
a strong foundation of every Good State.
1. This writ petition discloses a most disturbing state of affairs
and reflects a continuing failure on the part of the respondent
authorities to discharge their statutory and constitutional obligations in
matters of land acquisition. The petitioners are landowners whose lands
were taken into possession by respondent nos.6 and 7 on 2 February
3 WP13381.2025.odt
1996 for the purpose of construction of Village Tank No.1 at village
Pimpargaon Dani, Taluka Patoda, District Beed. The petitioners have
placed on record the possession receipt dated 2 February 1996, which
evidences that possession of the subject lands was taken by private
negotiation. It is an admitted position that the project of construction of
the village tank was completed in the very same year and the land has
since then been utilised for the public purpose. Before we decide the
present petition on merits, we proceed to deal with the constant failure
noticed by us in several petitions filed pertaining to Land Acquisition
matters where the State and its officials have completely been negligent
for years together in completing the process; thereby causing not only
hardship but harassment to the land owners.
2. This case is not an isolated instance. It is illustrative of a
larger, systemic problem, repeatedly noticed by this Court in land
acquisition matters. Aggrieved landowners are driven to litigation only
because the authorities fail to perform their basic statutory obligations.
Such a situation cannot be permitted to continue.
3. We therefore take up this Petition as test case and we deem
it necessary to observe that the facts of the present case as of several
other matters disclose an extraordinary and wholly unjustified delay of
nearly three decades in completing land acquisition proceedings even
after taking possession of the petitioners' lands. Such delay has resulted
4 WP13381.2025.odt
not only in grave prejudice to the landowners but also in substantial and
avoidable financial burden on the public exchequer by way of interest
and escalated compensation. The Chief Secretary, Government of
Maharashtra, is therefore expected to take note of the manner in which
statutory duties have been discharged in the cases of Land Acquisition
and to cause an appropriate administrative examination to be
undertaken for fixing responsibility for the delay and inaction, and to
take such action as may be warranted in accordance with law. We clarify
that this Court is not expressing any opinion on individual culpability;
however, accountability for such prolonged dereliction of statutory duty
is essential to ensure that similar situations do not recur in future.
4. The issues which repeatedly come before this Court in
matters of land acquisition, disclose a deeply disturbing and systemic
failure on the part of the State administration. In a large number of
cases, lands belonging to citizens many of whom are agriculturists,
illiterate or rustic persons have been taken into possession by the
acquiring authorities several years, and in some cases several decades,
ago. Public projects have been completed and are in full operation. Yet,
despite possession having been taken and the land having vested in the
State, the acquisition proceedings have not been taken to their logical
and lawful conclusion. Either awards have not been passed at all, or
though awards have been passed, compensation has neither been paid
to the landowners nor deposited with the competent authority in
5 WP13381.2025.odt
accordance with law. The result is that landowners are compelled to
approach this Court repeatedly seeking writs of mandamus for
enforcement of what is, in truth, a basic statutory and constitutional
obligation of the State.
4.1. This Court cannot overlook the fact that such inaction has
grave and multi-dimensional consequences. First, it causes manifest
hardship, harassment and injustice to landowners, who are deprived of
both their property and the compensation guaranteed by law. Secondly,
it results in enormous and avoidable financial burden on the State
exchequer. Where no award is passed for long periods after possession is
taken, the compensation is ultimately required to be determined under
the prevailing statutory regime, often at current market rates under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, thereby multiplying the
compensation manifold. In cases where compensation was determined
years earlier but not paid or deposited, statutory interest often not less
than 15% per annum accrues for decades. Thus, a modest compensation
amount, which could have been discharged in time, swells into two or
three times, and in some cases far more, solely due to administrative
negligence. This additional financial burden is ultimately borne by the
public exchequer and paid from funds meant for welfare, development
and basic necessities of citizens.
6 WP13381.2025.odt
4.2. The Court is constrained to observe that the State cannot be
permitted to plead its own inaction, inefficiency or inter-departmental
delays as a defence. Once land is taken from a citizen, the obligation to
determine and pay compensation is absolute. Article 300A of the
Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property
save by authority of law. Authority of law does not end with taking
possession; it necessarily includes lawful determination of compensation
and payment or deposit thereof. There is no concept in constitutional or
statutory law of "acquisition without compensation due to
administrative lapse." The continued failure to complete acquisition
proceedings, even after possession and completion of projects, amounts
to a continuing wrong and a continuing breach of constitutional duty.
4.3. The Court is equally mindful that many affected
landowners, particularly agriculturists and illiterate persons, may not
even be aware that formal acquisition proceedings have been initiated or
concluded, or that they are entitled to compensation and statutory
interest. Others may be aware but lack the knowledge, resources or
access required to approach courts. The State, which claims to be a
welfare State, cannot be permitted to take advantage of such ignorance
or helplessness. Property rights under Article 300A are not illusory rights
available only to those who can litigate; they are constitutional
guarantees enforceable against the State itself.
7 WP13381.2025.odt
4.4. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the limits of its
constitutional role. It is not for this Court to legislate, to frame policy in
the abstract, or to step into the shoes of the executive. However, where
statutory duties are repeatedly breached on a large scale, resulting in
continuing illegality, injustice to citizens and massive loss to the public
exchequer, this Court would be failing in its constitutional obligation if it
confines itself to deciding individual writ petitions in isolation. In such
circumstances, issuance of structured, time-bound directions to ensure
performance of existing statutory duties falls squarely within the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4.5. The problem before the Court is not an absence of law, but
persistent non-implementation of law. What is required is a focused,
mission-mode administrative response to identify all pending land
acquisition cases, categorise them, and take them to their lawful
conclusion by passing awards, paying compensation, or depositing the
same with the competent authority wherever direct payment is not
possible. This exercise, if undertaken in a time-bound and accountable
manner, will simultaneously protect the rights of landowners and arrest
further avoidable loss to the State exchequer.
4.6. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the
State Government must be directed to adopt a comprehensive, statewide
mechanism to address all pending land acquisition cases in which (i)
8 WP13381.2025.odt
possession has been taken but no award has been passed, and (ii)
awards have been passed but compensation has not been paid or
deposited. The responsibility for initiating and supervising this exercise
must lie at the highest administrative level, so that inter-departmental
inertia and diffusion of responsibility do not defeat the object.
4.7. The Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra, being the
administrative head of the State, is therefore required to take immediate
cognisance of this issue. A dedicated, mission-mode administrative
structure shall be constituted under the supervision of the Chief
Secretary or a senior officer of equivalent rank nominated by him. At the
State level, a steering committee shall be formed comprising senior
officers from the Revenue Department, Finance Department, Law and
Judiciary Department and major acquiring bodies, with a designated
State Nodal Officer responsible for coordination, monitoring and
compliance. At the district level, committees headed by the District
Collectors shall be constituted, involving the concerned Land Acquisition
Officers, representatives of acquiring authorities and treasury or
accounts officials.
4.8. As a first and foundational step, the State shall undertake a
comprehensive identification and compilation of all pending land
acquisition cases across the State. A complete acquisition ledger shall be
prepared district-wise, identifying each acquisition in which possession
9 WP13381.2025.odt
has been taken, indicating whether an award has been passed, whether
compensation has been paid or deposited, the amount involved, the date
of possession, the acquiring body, and the present status. The ledger
shall also record cases where compensation could not be paid due to
disputes regarding title, apportionment or non-traceability of
landowners. This exercise shall not be treated as a mere formality; it is
intended to bring transparency, fix responsibility and enable informed
decision-making.
4.9. Upon preparation of this ledger, cases shall be categorised
for the purpose of resolution. In cases where possession has been taken
but no award has been passed, the determination of compensation shall
be completed within strict and reasonable timelines, with priority
accorded to the oldest cases. In cases where awards have been passed
but compensation has not been paid, payment shall be made forthwith,
along with statutory interest, or, where direct payment is not possible
due to disputes or other legally recognised impediments, the
compensation amount shall be deposited with the competent authority
strictly in accordance with the governing statute & where there are court
cases pending, then amount can be deposited in respective Courts. In
any event, such amount then be invested in the bank for reasonable
period so that it can earn interest. Keeping the amount idle will not
yield any benefit to the State or Claimant. The excuse that funds have
not been received from the proposing or acquiring department shall not
10 WP13381.2025.odt
be accepted as justification for non-payment or non-deposit, as this is an
internal administrative issue for which the landowner cannot be made to
suffer.
4.10. Special attention shall be paid to cases involving
agriculturists, illiterate and rural landowners. Adequate public notices
shall be issued, and outreach measures undertaken at the village and
taluka levels, so that such persons are informed of the acquisition, their
entitlement to compensation, and the steps required to receive the same.
Assistance through legal services authorities and para-legal volunteers
shall be extended wherever necessary, so that ignorance or lack of
resources does not result in forfeiture of lawful compensation.
4.11. Equally important is the question of accountability. This
Court cannot remain a silent spectator to repeated instances where
public funds are squandered due to negligence, apathy or indifference of
officials entrusted with statutory duties. While this Court does not
propose to itself conduct disciplinary proceedings or determine
individual culpability, it is entirely within the constitutional domain of
this Court to direct the State to examine such cases, fix responsibility
and take action in accordance with law. Where substantial financial loss
to the exchequer has occurred due to unexplained and unjustifiable
delay in passing awards or paying compensation, the State Government
must undertake an internal audit to identify the causes and the officers
11 WP13381.2025.odt
responsible. Appropriate departmental proceedings and, wherever as
permissible in law, recovery of loss may be considered, strictly following
due process. Such accountability is essential not only to protect public
funds but also to ensure that similar derelictions do not recur in the
future. The State to make rules / procedure for recovery of amount
from the institution for whom land is acquired. Various Corporations
have been created for implementation of public projects, and lands are
acquired or made use of by MSEDCL etc., without adopting procedure
and without making budgetary provision. SLAO then only writes letters
of request to such institutions to make the funds available.
4.12. For effective implementation, this Court considers it
appropriate to retain supervisory jurisdiction for a limited period by
adopting the mechanism of continuing mandamus. Periodic compliance
reports shall be placed before this Court by the Chief Secretary,
indicating the number of cases identified, resolved, pending, the
amounts paid or deposited, and the steps taken towards fixing
accountability. The object of such monitoring is not to micro-manage the
administration, but to ensure that the constitutional and statutory
obligations, long neglected, are finally discharged.
4.13. This Court is satisfied that the directions contemplated
herein do not amount to judicial legislation or encroachment upon
executive or legislative functions. They merely require the State to
12 WP13381.2025.odt
perform duties already imposed by law, in a structured and time-bound
manner, so as to protect citizens' constitutional rights and prevent
further avoidable drain on the public exchequer. The situation has
reached a stage where delay can no longer be tolerated. The wound, as
it were, has festered for years; timely and decisive intervention is now
necessary to ensure that it does not become incurable, to the detriment
of both the citizens and the State itself.
5. Now reverting to the matter in hand, we proceed to decide
the same on merits.
6. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
7. After taking possession and completing the project,
respondent nos.6 and 7 submitted a proposal for acquisition of the lands
to respondent no.3 - the Collector, Beed. By communication dated 10
December 1996, the Collector forwarded the proposal to respondent
no.2 - the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Beed, for taking further steps
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A joint measurement of the
subject lands was thereafter carried out through the Deputy
Superintendent of Land Records, Ashti, and a report was submitted on 5
November 1997. As per the proposal and joint measurement report, land
bearing Survey Nos.40 and 45 admeasuring in all 1 Hectare 67 R of
village Pimpargaon Dani was proposed to be acquired for the said
project.
13 WP13381.2025.odt
8. However, despite possession having been taken and the
project having been completed, no further steps whatsoever were taken
by the respondents in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
No award was passed, no compensation was determined, and no
payment of compensation or even rental compensation was given to the
petitioners. It is also undisputed that while taking possession by private
negotiation, no advance payment of 80% of the estimated value of the
lands was made, as was required. The petitioners repeatedly requested
the authorities to complete the acquisition proceedings, but their
requests were met with complete indifference. Ultimately, petitioner
nos.4 and 5 were constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ
Petition No.1556 of 2018 seeking directions to the respondents to
complete the land acquisition proceedings. It was only after notice was
issued by this Court that the respondent authorities initiated steps.
Respondent no.5, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patoda, came to be
appointed as the Special Land Acquisition Officer. A notification under
Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was issued on 3
August 2018 and published in two local newspapers on 7 August 2018.
Individual notices under Section 11(1) were served upon the petitioners
on 29 August 2018. A spot inspection was conducted on 5 September
2018, and thereafter a declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013
14 WP13381.2025.odt
was issued and published in the Government Gazette dated 16-22 May
2019.
9. Even after initiation of proceedings under the Act of 2013,
the respondents once again slept over the matter. No award was
declared within a reasonable time, no compensation was determined,
and no payment was made. The petitioners were made to run from
pillar to post seeking information as to when the acquisition proceedings
would be completed and when they would receive compensation for
lands of which they had been deprived since 1996. No response was
forthcoming from any authority. Ultimately, the petitioners submitted a
written representation on 22 September 2025 requesting completion of
acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation along with
statutory interest under Section 80 of the Act of 2013.
10. It was only thereafter that respondent no.5 informed the
petitioners by communication dated 22 September 2025 that an award
had already been declared on 23 November 2020. The petitioners were
never served with any notice of the award, nor were they called upon to
receive compensation. Upon applying for a certified copy, the petitioners
obtained the award on the same day. Even after declaration of the
award, no amount of compensation has been offered, paid or deposited
in favour of the petitioners or any other affected landowners. This is
despite the clear mandate of Section 77(1) of the Act of 2013, which
15 WP13381.2025.odt
requires payment of compensation immediately upon declaration of the
award, and in the absence of any contingency under Section 77(2),
deposit in accordance with law.
11. It is an admitted position that possession of the petitioners'
lands was taken on 2 February 1996 and that the petitioners have been
deprived of the use and enjoyment of their lands for nearly three
decades. There is no dispute regarding title, apportionment or
entitlement. In such circumstances, the respondents were statutorily
bound not only to pay the compensation amount as per the award, but
also to pay interest in terms of Section 80 of the Act of 2013, since
possession was taken prior to payment of compensation.
12. When the matter was heard, learned counsel for the
petitioners reiterated the above facts. The learned AGP appearing for the
State did not dispute that the petitioners are entitled to compensation.
On instructions, the learned AGP tendered a communication dated 10
December 2025 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patoda, addressed
to the Collector, Beed. The said communication candidly admits that the
acquisition was initially undertaken under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, that no award was passed for decades, that proceedings were
thereafter continued under the Act of 2013, and that an award came to
be passed on 23 November 2020. It further admits that till date no
compensation has been paid to the landowners and that the
16 WP13381.2025.odt
compensation amount of Rs.31,91,395/- has not been received from the
proposing authority. This document is taken on record and marked as
Exhibit "X" for identification.
13. We are truly shocked by the manner in which statutory
duties have been treated by the respondent authorities. Lands were
taken in 1996, projects were completed, and yet the award was passed
only in 2020, that too after the landowners were compelled to approach
this Court. Even thereafter, for more than five years, no payment of
compensation has been made. The communication dated 10 December
2025 reveals that the only concern of the officers appears to be
avoidance of adverse judicial observations, rather than any genuine
sense of responsibility towards citizens whose lands have been taken.
14. The conduct of the authorities reflects a complete
abdication of statutory duty. Officers entrusted with the responsibility of
protecting citizens' rights have behaved as if they are masters rather
than servants of the public. The landowners have been made to run
behind the administration for decades for what is their lawful and
constitutional entitlement. Such indifference not only violates statutory
provisions but also strikes at the heart of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India.
15. We fail to understand the rationale of taking possession of
land and handing it over for project execution without first ensuring
17 WP13381.2025.odt
availability of compensation funds. Such conduct demonstrates a
complete lack of administrative prudence and accountability. The burden
of statutory interest and enhanced compensation ultimately falls on the
State exchequer and deprives funds meant for public welfare, solely due
to the negligence and apathy of officials who face no personal
consequences.
16. In the present case, there is no dispute whatsoever
regarding the entitlement of the petitioners. Possession was taken in
1996. The award has admittedly been passed on 23 November 2020. No
compensation has been paid till date. The respondents are therefore
under a clear statutory obligation to forthwith complete the acquisition
proceedings by paying compensation to all affected landowners along
with interest as mandated by law.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent
authorities are directed to complete the land acquisition proceedings in
respect of the subject project by making payment of compensation to the
petitioners and all other affected landowners, strictly in accordance with
the award dated 23 November 2020 and the provisions of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013, including payment of interest as payable
under Section 80 of the said Act. The entire exercise shall be completed
within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order.
18 WP13381.2025.odt
18. The Collector, Beed, shall ensure compliance of these
directions and shall file a detailed compliance report before this Court
on the next date, indicating the amounts paid, the dates of payment,
and the manner of compliance in respect of each affected landowner.
Failure to comply with these directions shall be viewed seriously. The
Collector, Beed, shall deposit an amount of Rs. 35.00 lakh in this Court
within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of the order.
19. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
20. Place the matter for first compliance on 10th March, 2026.
21. The Registry and the Office of the Government Pleader are
directed to place this judgment and order before the Chief Secretary of
the Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, and also before the Principal
Secretary, Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai, for compliance.
[HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
SG Punde
Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/02/2026 20:12:33
