[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Chandrakant Gangaram Shinde And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 12 January, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2026:BHC-AS:1290-DB 35-WP-9962-2024.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9962 OF 2024
Chandrakant Gangaram Shinde and Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra and Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10003 OF 2024
Dilip Kisanrao Shinde ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra and Ors ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Aniesh Jadhav with Amisha Lolusare, for the Petitioners.
Ms. S.D. Vyas, Addl. G.P.,with M.S. Bane, AGP for the Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Yogesh Vijay Patil, for the Respondent No. 6, MSRDC.
_______
CORAM: MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE: 9th JANUARY 2026.
P.C.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Learned AGP for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.6. In the peculiar facts of the present case, Respondent Nos.3 to 5 -
banks cannot be said to be contesting respondents and therefore even
though they are not represented despite service, the hearing and disposal
of this petition need not await their presence.
Sweety
35-WP-9962-2024.DOC
By the present petition, the petitioners have challenged a notice
dated 22nd February, 2024 issued by the Respondent No.2, i.e., the
Competent Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer. By the said notice, the
petitioners were called upon to refund excess amount allegedly paid to
them in the context of acquisition of their land and structures standing
thereon. It is claimed that after the award was pronounced on the basis of
negotiations between the parties, in the light of a valuation report obtain
subsequently, the Respondent No.2 found that an amount of
Rs.1,10,48,308/- was paid in excess to the petitioners. The notice does not
specify as to what was the basis for claiming that such excess amount was
paid and copy of the valuation report was not even furnished to the
petitioners.
2. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the communication dated
22nd February, 2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 to the Respondent
Nos.3,4 and 5- banks, thereby freezing the accounts of the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that proper
opportunity of responding to the notice was not given to the petitioners
and there is violation of natural justice even a copy of the valuation report
is not furnished to the petitioners and a notice does not specify the ground
on which, i.e., claimed on excess amount was paid. It is further submitted
that there is no source of power for the Respondent No.2 to issue the
impugned communication dated 22nd February, 2024 to the aforesaid
Sweety
35-WP-9962-2024.DOC
respondent- banks to freeze the bank accounts of the petitioners. It is
submitted that the impugned actions of the Respondent No.2 are wholly
arbitrary and that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. On the other hand, the learned AGP learned counsel appearing
for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the petitioners themselves had
given an affidavit when the compensation was disbursed that they would
refund any amount that may be subsequently found to be excessively
disbursed to them. Attention of this Court was invited to the contents of
the affidavit wherein it was stated on behalf of the petitioners that in case
recovery of excess amount was occasion, same could be recovered as
arrears of Land Revenue by records to the Provision of the Maharashtra,
Land Revenue Court, 1960. It was submitted that this was a source of
power for the Respondent No.2 to act against the petitioners.
5. Reference was made in the reply affidavit placed on record
wherein it is stated that the subsequent valuation report revealed that one
of the structures for which compensation was disbursed to the petitioners
was not affected by the acquisition and the right of way. On this basis, it
was submitted that petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for contesting Respondent No.6
supported the submissions of the Learned AGP. He further added that being
the beneficiary under the acquisition and the body that made available the
funds for disbursing compensation to the petitioners, the interest of the
Sweety
35-WP-9962-2024.DOC
said respondent ought to be protected by this directing the petitioners to
keep the excess amount available at all times, even if the present petition is
to be considered positively.
7. We considered the rival submissions. We find that the award in
the present case was issued pursuant to negotiation of the petitioners and
Respondent No.2. The negotiations led to the Respondent No.2 as the
competent authority offering compensation amount of Rs.2,68,90,129/-
(page 15). It is an admitted position that the entire amount was disbursed
to the petitioners. Thereafter the impugned notice dated 22nd February,
2024 was issued, claiming that in the light of it being found that the
valuation determined by the Public Works Department earlier was showing
excessive amount payable to the petitioners and in the light of the said
report the petitioners were required to refund excess amount of
Rs.1,10,48,308/-. On the same day, Respondent No.2 issued the impugned
communication dated 22nd February, 2024 to freeze the bank accounts of
the petitioners.
8. We find that the notice dated 22nd February, 2024 does not
referred to any specific ground of which it was found that the aforesaid
excessive amount had been disbursed to the petitioners. It simply refers to
a report submitted by the Public Works Departments stating that the
violation determined earlier resulted in excessive amount being disbursed
to the petitioners. There is nothing to show that the copy of the report was
Sweety
35-WP-9962-2024.DOC
furnished to the petitioners. Thus the petitioners were hampered in
effectively responding to the said notice dated 22nd February, 2024.
9. It is settled law in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Gill versus Election Commission----- that the authorities have to
justify their orders or notices on the basis of the contents thereof and that
reasons cannot be supplied in affidavits filed in the Court. The reasons
stated in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2,
therefore, cannot be considered at all as the petitioners in the first place
never got an opportunity to meet the purported reason that one of the
structures for which compensation was disbursed to the petitioners was
actually not affected by the acquisition or the right of way. Therefore the
impugned notice dated 22nd February, 2024 is found to be unsustainable.
10. As regards communication dated 22nd February, 2024 issued by
the Respondent No.2 directing respondent banks to freeze the bank
accounts of the petitioners, we failed to understand as to what was the
source of power for the Respondent No.2 directs such a drastic action in
the context of the petitions. Even of the source of such power is to be
traced to the affidavit submitted by the petitioners while the compensation
was disbursed to the effect that they would refund any excess amount
disbursed to them, it is found that in the affidavit itself it is stated that if
they fail to refund the amount, it would be recovered arrears of land
acquisition under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Court, 1960. Therefore,
Sweety
35-WP-9962-2024.DOC
there is no source of power for the Respondent No.2 in the facts and
circumstances of the present case to issue the impugned communication
dated 22nd February, 2024 whereby the bank accounts of petitioners were
frozen.
11. In view of the above we find that the writ petition deserves to be
allowed. This would certainly not preclude Respondent No.2 to issue a
fresh notice to the petitioners. In accordance with law, by following
principles of natural justice to seek recovery of alleged excessive payment
of compensation made to them.
12. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in the following terms:
(I) The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
Consequently, impugned notice dated 22nd February, 2024 issued by the
Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. Equally, the communication
dated 22nd February, 2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 for freezing the
bank accounts of the petitioners is also quashed and set aside.
(II) The Respondent No.2 would be at liberty to issue a fresh notice to the
petitioners to claim refund of alleged excess amount of compensation
disposed to them. Such a notice shall state the grounds on which such
recovery is contemplated and copy of the report of the Public Works
Department upon stated that the earlier valuation was found to be
erroneous shall be furnish to the petitioners along with the fresh notice.
Sweety
35-WP-9962-2024.DOC
(III) Respondent No.2 grant shall grant reasonable time to the petitioners
to respond to such a fresh notice, if any.
(IV) In the event the Respondent No.2 comes to a conclusion after
considering the response of the that the amount is recoverable from them
and issues an order in that context, such an order shall be kept in abeyance
for a period of four weeks from the date of service of the order on the
petitioners.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Sweety
