[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pundlik S/O Sukhadev Rethe vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 7 January, 2026
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2026:BHC-NAG:184-DB
111-WP-5133-2019.odt 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5133 OF 2019
Supada S/O Vitthal Gulbhele
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5157 OF 2019
Shankuntala W/O Balkrushna Takote
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5156 OF 2019
Leelabai W/O Purnaji Ubhe Dead, Through
Her Lrs. Haridas Purnaji Ubhe
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5136 OF 2019
Shriram Shalikram Dhole Dead, Through Lrs.
Gangubai Wd/O Shriram Dhole And Another
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5163 OF 2019
Shrikrushna S/O Supadaji Band
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5166 OF 2019
Ramdas S/O Ninaji Dhande
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5161 OF 2019
111-WP-5133-2019.odt 2/8
Sonabai Fakira Sanisebaber
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5155 OF 2019
Raju S/O Tersingh Jamra (Pawra), Buldhana
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5154 OF 2019
Sahebrao S/O Chandrabhan Nathjogi
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5165 OF 2019
Sayyad Kalim Sayyad Sadoriddin And Another
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5158 OF 2019
Pundlik S/O Sukhadev Rethe
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5167 OF 2019
Narayan S/O Fakira Dhande
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5168 OF 2019
Gajanan S/O Pandurang Wanare
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
111-WP-5133-2019.odt 3/8
WRIT PETITION NO. 5135 OF 2019
Abidkha Yunuskha
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5137 OF 2019
Sandip S/O Shivdas Hurpade
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5138 OF 2019
Dashrathappa S/O Shankarappa Kardale
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5134 OF 2019
Ambarsing S/O Narayan Rajput And Others
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Mumbai And Another
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Smt. S. W. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. K. P. Marpakwar, AGP for Respondent State.
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE : 7th JANUARY, 2026.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court for seeking
direction to the respondents to pay the amount of difference
between the sale deed of the petitioner and the last sale deed
along with interest at the current rate.
3. The grievance of the petitioenr is that the Government
vide Government Resolution dated 6th July 1999, acquired the
land for the project of "Kurha Wadhoda Islampur Upsa Sinchan
Yojana, Tq. Muktainagar, Distt. Jalgaon Va Jalgaon Jamod,
District Buldhana". Under the said project, total nine sale deeds
were executed on 29th July 2019. Out of which one sale deed
was of the present petitioner and accordingly his land was
acquired. The petitioner in the year 2010 realized that in
January 2010 the price of the land increased and accordingly
158 sale deeds were executed for the same project at higher
rate and hence, the present petitioner has approached this
Court for seeking direction to the respondents to pay the
amount of difference between the sale deed of the petitioner
and other sale deeds of higher rate.
4. The aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of the
petitioner in the year 2010, the petitioner is before this Court
claiming such relief in the year 2026. In the present petition,
which was filed in the year 2018, apart from the delay, the
basic grievance of the petitioner is that the subsequent sale
deeds in the subsequent years were executed at the higher
rate. The reason for such execution of the sale deeds at the
higher rate can be found in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of
Annexure-II which read as under:
2) [kjsnh djrkauk ck/khy Hkw/kkjdkl |ko;kpk tfeuhpk nj gk "kh?kz
lh/n x.kd] [kjsnh fodzh O;ogkj o mRiUu HkkaMoyhdj.k i/nr ;k rhu i/nrhus
dk<yk tkrks- ;k rhu i/nrhiSdh T;k i/nrhus nj lokZr tkLr ¼egRre½ ;sbZy
rks nj "ksrd&;kauk Qk;ns"khj vlY;kus R;k njkus [kjsnh dj.;kr ;srs o gk nj
R;k dWysaMj o'kkZlkBh fuf"pr dsyk tkrks-
3) njo'khZ tkusokjh efgU;ke/;s "kh?kz&lh/n x.kdkps lacaf/kr f"kokjkps
nj gs eglqy [kkR;kekQZr lq/kkjhr dsys tkrkr- vkiY;k foHkkxkl izkIr
f"k?kz&fl/n x.kdkps lq/kkjhr nj o lacaf/kr o'kkZyk vuql#u >kysys [kjsnh fodzh
O;ogkj o mRiUu HkkaMoyhdj.k ;kuwlkj iqUgk R;k dWysaMj o'kkZlkBh nj fuf"pr
dj.;klkBh ojhyizek.ks rhugh i/nrhus nj dk<wu egRre nj R;k dWysaMj
o'kkZlkBh fuf"pr dsyk tkrks o R;k dWysaMj o'kkZr R;k njkuqlkj [kjsnh
dj.;kr ;srs-
4) lu 2009 e/;s 166 "ksrd&;kauh R;kaP;k ck/khr tfeuh ;k
foHkkxkl lu 2009 P;k eatwj njkuqlkj [kjsnh d#u fnY;k- ijarq tkus 2010
e/;s "kh?kz&fl/n x.kd njke/;s >kysyh ok< fopkjkr ?ksrk lu 2010 pk [kjsnhpk
nj 2009 P;k njkis{kk 40% tkLr vkyk o lu 2010 e/khy 158 [kjs|k g;k
lu 2010 e/khy fuf"pr njkuqlkj dj.;kr vkY;k-
5. The aforesaid reasons clearly substantiates the execution
of the sale deeds in the subsequent years with the higher rates
and accordingly there is no merit in the present petition apart
from the fact that there is dealy and latches on the part of the
petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in
identical petitions Writ Petition No. 3713 of 2019, so also Writ
Petition No.1613 of 2019, this Court had allowed the claim of
the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Daulat Sitaram Kodone and Others
Versus State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2014) 13
Supreme Court Cases 341.
7. We have perused the facts of the Writ Petition No. 1613
of 2019. The aforesaid case relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported supra. The judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Daulat Sitaram
Kodone and Others (supra) was against the judgment of this
Court passed in Writ Petition No.1835 of 2010. The facts of the
case are reproduced from para 1 of the aforesaid judgment,
which is as follows:
" By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the
respondents to include the names of the petitioners in the list
of project affected persons eligible to receive enhanced
compensation which is being paid to the other villagers. The
petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay the
petitioners equal compensation as is payable to the other
project affected persons of village Sawargaon after deducting
the amount of Rs.50,000/- which is received by them.
The lands of the petitioners and the other persons from
village Sawargaon were acquired by the State of
Maharashtra and the petitioners as well as the other
villagers of Sawargaon were allotted small plots of land
by the State of Maharashtra for their rehabilitation. In
the year 2005-2006. since the petitioners did not
construct any residential houses on those plots and
chose to reside at some other place, the State of
Maharashtra by the resolution dated 13.12.2006
decided to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the project
affected persons who were ready to forgo their right in
the plot which was allotted to them. In view of the
decision dated 13.12.2006 the petitioners entered into
an agreement with the State Government whereby they
accepted the amount of Rs.50000/- and agreed to forgo
their rights in the plots which were allotted to them at
village Pagora. It was stated in the agreement between
the parties that the petitioners would not make any
further claim after receiving the sum of Rs.50000/- from
the State Government for forgoing their rights in the
plots which were allotted to them. Nothing happened
thereafter for a period of about four years and since the
land belongs to the Forest Department, the State of
Maharashtra decided to take back the plots allotted to
the villagers of Sawargaon as village Pagora and instead
pay them total compensation of Rs.10,06,55,000/-
approximately.
The case of the petitioners is that now the other villagers
of village Sawargaon are now receiving higher
compensation/amount than what was paid to the
petitioners in the year 2006-2007 and hence their names
should again be included in the list of project affected
persons and they also are entitled to higher
compensation. In this background the petitioners seek
the aforesaid reliefs."
8. Thus, the facts of the aforesaid Writ Petition No.1835 of
2010 which was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was
finally decided and reported in (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases
341 are completely different from the facts of the present case.
Hence, the aforesaid judgment is not at all applicable to the
present case and accordingly will not benefit the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
(RAJ. D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
MJ Jadhav
