Dismissed¶33

Ashok Gangaram Kajrolkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2025CRPIL/6/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public Interest Litigation dismissed; National Highway Act 1956 Sections 3E and 3H; impugned notice dated 27/03/2017; compensation Rs. 4,12,90,487/- to Sunil Sitaram Jadhav; unauthorized construction; Mumbai Goa Highway widening project; land acquisition compensation; writ of mandamus; writ of certiorari; departmental enquiry; First Information Report; representation dated 20/01/2019; affidavit of Kalpana Tanaji Jagtap; non-agricultural use without Competent Authority approval; Kolhapur Circuit Bench; Bombay High Court; decided 11 December 2025.

What did the court decide?

In the light of the detailed Affidavit dated 28th February 2020 filed by the State, the Court found no merit in the P.I.L. Petition. ¶32

Ashok Gangaram Kajrolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice dated 27/03/2017 issued under Sections 3E and 3H of the National Highway Act 1956 in regard to disbursing compensation to unauthorized constructions in the Mumbai Goa Highway widening Project acquisition ought to be quashed and set aside. +3 more

¶17

Ratio / Principle

In the light of the detailed Affidavit dated 28th February 2020 filed by the State, the Court found no merit in the P.I.L. Petition.

¶32

Key takeaways

The Court accepted the State's affidavit explanation — that even if land is put to non-agricultural use without the approval of the Competent Authority the structure is liable for compensation, and that land compensation is decided treating the land as agricultural — as answering the Petitioner's grievance that compensation was wrongly paid to the person responsible for the unauthorized construction.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PIL dismissed — Ashok Gangaram Kajrolkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., Public Interest Litigation No. 06 of 2020 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur; M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.; 11 December 2025): The Petitioner alleged wrongful payment of compensation of Rs. 4,12,90,487/- to Mr. Sunil Sitaram Jadhav, owner of an unauthorized construction, in the land acquisition for the Mumbai Goa Highway widening Project, and sought (i) quashing of the notice dated 27/03/2017 issued under Sections 3E and 3H of the National Highway Act 1956 regarding disbursal of compensation to unauthorized constructions, (ii) a departmental enquiry against Respondent No. 5 and registration of an FIR on his representation dated 20/01/2019, and (iii) investigation and recovery of all compensations disbursed for unauthorized constructions along the highway. The State's Affidavit dated 28/02/2020 of Ms. Kalpana Tanaji Jagtap (Deputy Collector, Encroachment Removal, Mulund; formerly Sub-Divisional Officer, Chiplun) explained that even where land is put to non-agricultural use without approval of the Competent Authority, the structure remains liable for compensation and land compensation is computed treating the land as agricultural. In the light of this affidavit the Court found no merit in the P.I.L. and dismissed it.

¶1

20-Crpil-6-2020.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 06 OF 2020

¶5

Ashok Gangaram Kajrolkar … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

None for the Petitioner. Mr. A.A. Naik, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶7

——————

¶8

Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. Date : 11^th December 2025.

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

1. We have perused the Memo of the Petition.

¶11

2. This Petition prays for the following substantive reliefs :-

¶12

“a) Rule be issued;

¶13

b) That by an appropriate writ, order direction, order in the nature of writ of mandamus and/or any other writ or direction in the nature of mandamus shall be issued directing the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to initiate departmental enquiry against the Respondent No. 05 and investigate the allegations made in the said representation made by the Petitioners against the Respondent No. 5;

¶14

1 of 4

¶15

osk

¶16

20-Crpil-6-2020.doc

¶17

c) That by an appropriate writ, order direction, order in the nature of writ of certiorari and/or any other writ or direction in the nature of certiorari shall be issued to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 27/03/2017, u/s 3E and 3H of National Highway Act 1956; and any other notices in regards disbursing compensation to unauthorized constructions issued by the Respondent No. 5 in related acquisition process of Mumbai Goa Highway widening Project.

¶18

d) That by an appropriate writ, order direction, order in the nature of writ of mandamus and/or any other writ or direction in the nature of mandamus shall be issued directing the Respondents to recover the compensation amount of Rs. 4,12,90,487/- (Rupees Four Crores Twelve Lakhs Ninety Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Seven only) to the owner Mr. Sunil Sitaram Jadhav;

¶19

e) That by an appropriate writ, order direction, ad-interim order in the nature of writ of mandamus and/or any other writ or direction in the nature of mandamus may be issued by this Hon'ble High Court to the Respondent No. 7 to investigate the representation dt. 20/01/2019 filed by the Petitioner and register a First Information Report against the Respondent No. 5;

¶20

f) That by an appropriate writ, order direction, order in the nature of writ of mandamus and/or any other writ or direction in the nature of mandamus shall be issued directing the Respondents to investigate the all the matters of disbursements of compensations adjudicated by the

¶21

2 of 4

¶22

osk

¶23

20-Crpil-6-2020.doc

¶24

Respondent No.5 in regards land acquisition proceedings carried out in Mumbai Goa Highway project;

¶25

g) That by an appropriate writ, order direction, order in the nature of writ of mandamus and/or any other writ or direction in the nature of mandamus shall be issued directing the Respondents to recover all the compensations disbursed to unauthorized constructions adjacent to the Mumbai Goa Highway;

¶26

h) For such and other reliefs as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

3. We have perused the detailed Affidavit dated 28^th February 2020 filed by Ms. Kalpana Tanaji Jagtap, then working as Deputy Collector (Encroachment Removal), Mulund, Mumbai, who was previously working as Sub-Divisional Officer, Chiplun, District Ratnagiri from the period 16^th September 2016 to 8^th September 2019. To the grievance of the Petitioner that the compensation has been wrongly paid to the person who is responsible for the unauthorized construction, a detailed explanation is submitted by way of Affidavit-in-Reply indicating that even if the land is put to non agricultural use without the approval of the Competent Authority, the structure is liable for compensation. It is stated that the compensation of the land should be decided treating such land as agricultural.

¶28

3 of 4

¶29

osk

¶30

20-Crpil-6-2020.doc

¶31

4. In the light of the detailed Affidavit dated 28^th February 2020, we

¶32