[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Jyoti Mohanlal Jain vs The State Of Maharashtra Throu. The ... on 23 February, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
15_WP17229_24&group.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.17229 OF 2024
Imran Qurbanali Maknojia ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5360 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6512 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6528 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6510 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7338 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6515 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7311 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7335 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7314 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6526 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5080 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5298 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5075 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6912 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2513 OF 2026
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2510 OF 2026
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14656 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2511 OF 2026
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2512 OF 2026
WITH
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2026 20:38:13 :::
15_WP17229_24&group.doc
WRIT PETITION NO.2514 OF 2026
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12982 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12984 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12983 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.16331 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.16009 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6990 OF 2025
(Not on Board. Taken on Board.)
---
Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w. Mr. Sharique Nachan, Ms. Afsha Khan and Mr. Aqil
Khan i/b. Akif N. Patel for Petitioners in all the Petitions.
Mr. B. V. Samant, Additional GP a/w. Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for Respondents-
State in WP/17229/2024, WP/5360/2025 and WP/6512/2025.
S. P. Kamble, AGP for Respondents-State in WP/6527/2025 and WP/6510/2025.
Ms. T. N. Bhatia, AGP for Respondents-State in WP/7338/2025, WP/6515/2025,
WP/12983/2024 and WP/16331/2024.
Ms. Pooja Patil, AGP for Respondents-State in WP/7311/2025 and
WP/7335/2025.
Ms. P. M. J. Deshpande, AGP for Respondents-State in WP/7314/2025 and
WP/6526/2025.
M. M. Pabale, AGP for Respondents-State in WP/5080/2025 and WP/5298/2025.
Mr.R.S.Pawar, AGP for Respondents-State in WP/5075/2025 and WP/6912/2025.
Mr. Ketan Joshi, 'B' Panel for Respondents-State in WP/2513/2026 and
WP/2510/2026.
Ms. Leena Patil, 'B' Panel for Respondents-State in WP/14656/2025 and
WP/2511/2026.
Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondents-State in WP/2512/2026 and
WP/2514/2026.
Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for Respondents-State in WP/12982/2024 and
WP/12984/2024.
Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for Respondents-State in WP/16331/2024 and
WP/16009/2024.
Ms. Shyamali Gadre a/w. Ms. Mrunal Tavade i/b. Little & Co. for Respondent
No.2 - MIDC.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 23, 2026
15_WP17229_24&group.doc
P.C. :
. At the outset, Mr. Kanade, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that there is one more writ petition raising an identical issue
bearing Writ Petition No.6990 of 2025. But, it is not on Board today.
2. In that light, Writ Petition No.6990 of 2025 is taken on Board
along with these writ petitions.
3. The common issue raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions
is that pursuant to notifications issued in respect of their lands,
proposing acquisition for the respondent Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation (MIDC), the petitioners had agreed for
acquisition of their lands in lieu of which they agreed for receiving
compensation, the amounts being stated in the respective writ petitions.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid exercise was
undertaken in the year 2019 and till date, compensation has not been
paid to the petitioners. It is further asserted that in the case of some of
the petitioners, physical possession of lands was also taken by the
respondents.
5. The respondent State authorities are represented by the learned
AGPs, while Ms. Shyamali Gadre, learned counsel appears on behalf of
the respondent - MIDC.
6. It is specifically submitted on behalf of the respondent MIDC that
the said respondent had itself approached the State for denotifying the
lands of all the petitioners as the lands, stated to be in hilly area, were
not required by the said respondent. It is submitted that the proposal for
denotification is still pending before the State authorities.
7. We are of the opinion that the petitioners, certainly those
petitioners whose possession of lands was taken, would still have to be
15_WP17229_24&group.doc
compensated even if the lands are denotified from acquisition, and
therefore, these petitions deserve to be considered on merits.
8. The learned AGPs will have to take specific instructions in the
matter.
9. In view of the above, issue notice to the respondents in all the
petitions.
10. Learned AGPs waive notice on behalf of the respondents - State
authorities. Ms. Gadre, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of the
respondent - MIDC.
11. The service is complete.
12. The respondents shall file their reply affidavits within three weeks
from today.
13. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
14. This Court may consider finally disposing of the petitions on the
next date of listing.
15. List on 01.04.2026, High on Board.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Minal Parab
