Ganpat Pandurang Jadhav vs Deputy Collector and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

Ganpat Pandurang Jadhav vs Deputy Collector and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Mandamus-type direction to Respondent No.1 (Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Raigad) to consider and decide the pending application dated 21.02.2023 with Report No. Punarv/Koyna/SR/93/23 expeditiously and within 4 weeks of the order being made available, after hearing all parties; rights and contentions kept open; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.1 (Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Raigad) should be directed by mandamus to take a decision on the Petitioner's application dated 21.02.2023 read with Report No. Punarv/Koyna/SR/93/23 dated 16.06.2023 of the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Satara, concerning grant of alternate land and residential plot for Koyna Hydro Project rehabilitation.

Court's answer

Respondent No.1 was directed to consider and decide the Petitioner's pending application dated 21.02.2023 and Report No. Punarv/Koyna/SR/93/23 expeditiously, and within a period of 4 weeks from the date the order is made available to that Respondent, after hearing all parties.

Ratio / Principle

All rights and contentions of the parties were expressly kept open, the Court not adjudicating the underlying entitlement to alternate land and residential plot.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Article 226 — Writ petition by Koyna Hydro Project oustee(s) seeking only a mandamus directing Respondent No.1, Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Raigad, to decide the Petitioner's application dated 21.02.2023, supported by Report No. Punarv/Koyna/SR/93/23 dated 16.06.2023 of the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Satara (by which the Petitioner's eligibility was already decided in the Petitioner's favour), for grant of alternate land and residential plot; the application had been pending since 2023. No reply was filed by the Respondents and the Court expressed no opinion on entitlement: it disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No.1 to consider and decide the pending application and report expeditiously and within 4 weeks of the order being made available, after hearing all parties, with all rights and contentions kept open and no order as to costs.

301 wp 16971-24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 16971 OF 2024

LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE

Digitally signed by LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Date: 2025.09.13 14:42:49 +0530

Ganpat P. Jadhav

.. Petitioner

Versus

Deputy Collector, Rehabilittion, Raigad & Ors. .. Respondents

Mr. Prasad Kulkarni a/w Raghvendra Kulkarni for the Petitioners.

Mr. R. M. Shinde, AGP for the Respondent-State.

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2025

P. C.

This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which prays for only one substantive relief which reads thus:-

“a) This Hon'ble Court may by way of any appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of writ of mandamus direct the Respondent to take the decision on the application of the Petitioner dated 21.02.2023 and the Report No. Punarv/Koyna/SR/93/23 dated 16.06.2023 of the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Satara.”

The Petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the inaction on the part of Respondent No.1 i.e. Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Raigad, in as much as the said

Laxmi

1/2

301 wp 16971-24.odt

Respondent has not granted alternate land and residential plot in favour of the Petitioner, which has been acquired by the Respondent Authorities for the Koyna Hydro Project and the eligibility of the Petitioner has also been decided in favour of the Petitioner by the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Satara.

The said application has been filed before Respondent No.1 way back in the year 2023 and the same is pending Consideration since then.

In our view, considering the limited relief that the Petitioner seeks in the Petition and although there being no written opposition/reply of the Respondents and considering the nature of the orders we propose to pass, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents.

The following order would serve the ends of justice:-

ORDER

i. We direct Respondent No.1 to consider and decide the pending application of the Petitioner dated 21^st February, 2023 and the Report No. Punarv/Koyna/SR/93/23 as expeditiously as possible, and within a period of 4 weeks from the date this order is made available to the said Respondent by the Petitioner. Let all parties be heard.

ii. All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

iii. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

[AARTI SATHE, J.] [ G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

Laxmi

2/2