[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shri. Kashinath Goma Gharat And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 30 January, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
bipin prithiani
1
913-wp-2233.23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2233 OF 2023
Shri Kashinath Goma Gharat & Anr. ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
******
Mr. Ganesh Koli i/by Ms. Aruna Koli for the Petitioners.
Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Mrs. M. S. Bane, AGP for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.
Mr. G. S. Hegde, Senior Counsel, a/w Ms. P. M. Bhansali for
Respondent No.3-CIDCO.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 30th JANUARY 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present petition raises a short grievance to the effect
that the impugned award dated 27th May 2016 passed by the
respondent No.2-Additional Collector (Land Acquisition)
erroneously includes lands in two survey numbers that were never
the subject matter of land acquisition. It is submitted on behalf of
the petitioners that the said mistake is admitted by the concerned
Authority, but it is stated that since the concerned Authority, in
law, under Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not
empowered to make any correction beyond the period of six
bipin prithiani
913-wp-2233.23.doc
months from the passing of the award, the petitioners would have
to approach the High Court for redressal of their grievance. This
is a short point involved in this writ petition.
3. We find that letter at exhibit 'J' dated 18 th September 2022,
issued by the respondent No.2, as a matter of fact acknowledges
that there is a mistake in as much as the award includes two
additional pieces of lands in acquisition, while only two pieces of
lands in different survey numbers were part of the acquisition. The
said letter indeed indicates to the aggrieved persons that they can
approach the High Court for redressal of their grievance.
4. It is pertinent to note that affidavit in reply is filed on behalf
of respondent No.2 contains the following statements :
"6. I say, that both Petitioners has given consent for
acquisition of the said land and the Award was declared on
date 27th May 2016. In between the process of notification
under 4 to the declaration of Award under section 11 CIDCO
has issued letter dated 2nd May 2015 and excluded survey no.
359/3 and 361/1 from the acquisition.
7. As survey no. 359/3 and 361/1 is excluded from
acquisition by CIDCO. Consent Award dated 27 th May 2016
declare for survey no. 360/6 & 362/5 and compensation was
given for the same but due to some clerical mistakes excluded
survey no. 359/3 and 361/1 are included in Award but both
excluded survey no. were neither acquired nor possession was
taken till date. Copy of award Annexed and marked as
"Exhibit-B" CIDO had allotted 22.5% developed land for
area acquired in survey number 360/6 & 362/5. Annexed and
marked as "Exhibit-C"
8. I say that, although all the survey numbers i.e. 359/3,
360/6m 361/1, 362/5 are mentioned on the said Award but
the Award has been declared for the survey number 360/6 and
bipin prithiani
913-wp-2233.23.doc
362/5 and eligibility of the same has been determined.
According to the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Acquisition
officer can rectify the clerical mistake within the six month of
the declaration of the award afterthat right to amendment
passed to Hon'ble High Court. However if the Hon'ble High
Court directs this office is ready to amend the award dated
27th May 2016."
5. The aforesaid stand is fairly taken on behalf of respondent
No.2 also in the light of the fact that while executing the kabja
pavati and panchanama for taking actual possession of the
acquired land, reference is made only to lands admeasuring 29
Ares in survey No. 360/6 and land admeasuring 25 Ares in survey
No. 362/5. This clearly indicates that a mistake occurred in the
award when it showed that lands from survey Nos. 359/3 and
361/1 were also acquired. In the light of the stand taken on behalf
of respondent No.2 in the above quoted portion of the reply
affidavit, we find no impediment in allowing the writ petition, so
that the impugned award dated 27 th May 2016 can be amended
accordingly.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clauses (b) and (c), which read as follows :
"b) The directions be given to the Respondent No. 2 to
delete the said lands bearing Survey/Hissa Nos. 359/3 and
361/1 situated at Village - Wahal, Taluka - Panvel, District -
Raigad from an Award dtd. 27/05/2016 bearing Unit Case
No. 31 which was admitted error as it has mistakenly added
in the said Award and for that purpose appropriate writ,
order and/or direction be issued;
c) The direction be given to the Respondent no.2 and 3 to
exclude the said lands bearing Survey/Hissa Nos.359/3 and
bipin prithiani
913-wp-2233.23.doc
361/1 situated at Village - Wahal, Taluka - Panvel, District -
Raigad from the said acquisition and for that purpose
appropriate writ, order and/or direction be issued;"
7. It is clarified that the direction in terms of prayer clause (c)
is in the context of award dated 27th May 2016.
8. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
9. The consequential steps will be taken by respondent No.2
within a period of four weeks from today.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
