[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ravi Prabhudas Mahbubani And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Thru G P And Ors on 30 March, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2026:BHC-AS:15104-DB
21_WP_3958_26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3958 OF 2026
Ravi Prabhudas Mahbubani and others ... Petitioners
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents
Mr. Dormaan J. Dalal a/w. Ms. Shirley Mody for petitioners.
Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for respondents - State authorities.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 30th MARCH, 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The limited grievance of the petitioners is that despite they
having submitted all the necessary documents before the respondent
No.2-Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) for disbursal of compensation
amount, as per award dated 03.09.2025, the amount is not being
disbursed in their bank accounts, as the said respondent is insisting
on personal presence of all the four petitioners. It is submitted that
section 77 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of
2013), pertains to the manner in which the compensation is to be
paid to the claimants. It specifies that such amounts shall be
deposited in the bank accounts of the claimants. According to the
petitioners, the statutory provision does not require their personal
presence, so long as they satisfy the concerned authority about their
identity as also the other documents that the authority may demand.
Digitally
signed by
PRIYA PRIYA
Date:
KAMBLI
KAMBLI 2026.03.30
17:54:16
21_WP_3958_26.doc
3. It is further submitted that the documents annexed to the
petition show that the petitioners have already submitted all
necessary documents, as specified in the notices issued by the said
respondent.
4. It is submitted that in such a situation, this Court may consider
allowing the present petition, so that the amounts can be disbursed
by the said respondent in the respective bank accounts of the
petitioners. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that the
said amounts would be received by the petitioners under protest, as
they have already initiated reference proceedings before the
competent authority, under the provisions of the Act of 2013 read
with Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act,
1961, for enhancement of compensation.
5. The learned AGP appears for respondent Nos.1 to 3. We find
that in the light of the limited relief sought by the petitioners,
respondent No.4 - Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
is a formal party and hence, service of notice upon respondent No.4
is dispensed with.
6. The learned AGP seeks time to take instructions in the matter
and highlights the documents required to be submitted by the
petitioners, as per the notices served upon by them at Exhibit B.
7. We find that the writ petition can be disposed of by issuing
appropriate directions, particularly in the light of the assertion made
by the petitioners that they have already submitted necessary
documents, as per the notices issued by the respondent No.2-SDO. In
that context, we find that the copies of letters submitted by the
21_WP_3958_26.doc
petitioners to the said respondent, are on record, which indeed show
that there does not appear to be any inter se dispute between the
petitioners with regard to the amount of compensation to be
deposited in their respective bank accounts.
8. Section 77 of the Act of 2013 specifies the mode of depositing
amount of compensation. It clearly states that in terms of the award,
the amount shall be deposited in the bank accounts of the claimants.
The documents on record clearly show that the details of bank
accounts of the petitioners, have been furnished to the respondent
No.2. Evidently, there is no inter se dispute between the petitioners.
As per the letters submitted by the petitioners before the said
respondent, the documents demanded by the said officer, appear to
have been submitted along with the letters. In such a situation,
insistence on personal presence of all the petitioners does not appear
to be justified.
9. There can be no doubt about the fact that the respondent No.2
would be entitled to satisfy himself about the identity of the
petitioners. The same can be verified on the basis of the documents
submitted by them. We do find specific statements made in the
petition, as regards the difficulties faced by petitioner Nos.1 and 4, as
they are senior citizens facing health issues. In such a situation, even
if one of the petitioners remains present before the respondent No.2,
the disbursal of the amount of compensation can be facilitated.
10. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by
directing that the petitioner No.2 shall remain present before the
respondent No.2-SDO on 06.04.2026 at 11:00 a.m. Although it is
specifically stated that necessary documents pertaining to all the
21_WP_3958_26.doc
petitioners have already been submitted before the respondent No.2,
an additional set of the same shall be submitted by petitioner No.2 to
the said respondent, on behalf of all the petitioners. The said
respondent shall verify the documents on the same day and within
one week thereafter, deposit the amount of compensation, as per the
share of the four petitioners, in their respective bank accounts,
details of which have been already submitted to the said respondent.
11. It is made clear that the petitioners would be accepting the
deposit of such amounts under protest and subject to the result of the
reference proceedings initiated on their behalf.
12. This order is passed taking into consideration the age of the
petitioners.
13. The writ petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya Kambli
