Disposed¶9

Sanjay Mulchand Gupta and Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Rehabilitaion Dept., Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC3 Sept 2025WP/5236/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench; Writ Petitions Nos. 5191, 5707, 5236 of 2024; Kilor & Vyas, JJ.; disposed 03-09-2025; VIDC (respondent no.3) alleged acquisition without due process/compensation; Survey No.67 (25R), Survey No.69 (2R), 15R; Mouza-Badegaon; re-measurement and boundary correction by SDO Saoner order dated 20.10.2023; respondent states no petitioners' land needed or possessed; nothing survives for adjudication; petitions disposed, no costs; damages for tree-cutting/compound-wall removal to be pursued via appropriate legal remedy.

What did the court decide?

All three writ petitions disposed of with no order as to costs; petitioners left free to pursue appropriate remedies available in law to claim damages for alleged cutting of trees and removal of compound wall. ¶9

Sanjay Mulchand Gupta and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Rehabilitaion Dept., Nagpur and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no.3 acquired portions of the petitioners' land without following due process of law and without payment of compensation. +2 more

¶2

Ratio / Principle

Considering respondent no.3's categorical statement that not a single inch of the petitioners' land is needed or intended to be acquired and that respondent no.3 has no possession over the petitioners' land, nothing survives for adjudication in these writ petitions.

¶6

Key takeaways

If any damage is caused to the petitioners, they may avail the appropriate remedy as permissible and available in law, claiming such damages; the question whether damage was in fact caused was expressly left unresolved, respondent no.3 disputing it.obiter¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Coram Anil S. Kilor and Rajnish R. Vyas, JJ.; decision dated 3rd September, 2025. Three writ petitions (Nos. 5191, 5707 and 5236 of 2024) filed by Vijay Ramrao Karadbhajane (and another) and Sanjay Mulchand Gupta (and others) against the State of Maharashtra and others were disposed of together. The petitioners' grievance was that respondent no.3 (VIDC) had, without following due process of law and without paying compensation, taken portions of their land — 25R of Survey No.67 (WP 5191/2024), 2R of Survey No.69 (WP 5707/2024) and 15R (WP 5236/2024) — allegedly removing a compound wall and cutting trees, with respondent no.3 reportedly in possession for about five years. In reply, respondent no.3 made a categorical statement that the original acquisition proposal related to Survey Nos. 59, 60, 61/1, 62, 63, 64/1, 64/2 at Mouza-Badegaon; after objections by adjoining owners of Survey Nos. 62 and 63, re-measurement was done and a new map correcting boundaries was prepared vide Sub-Divisional Officer, Saoner order dated 20.10.2023, so that not a single inch of the petitioners' land is needed or intended to be acquired and respondent no.3 holds no possession over it. Holding that nothing survived for adjudication, the Court disposed of the writ petitions (no order as to costs), observing that if any damage was caused by tree-cutting or removal of the compound wall, the petitioners may avail the appropriate remedy permissible and available in law to claim such damages.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:8754-DB 46-WP-5191-2024, 5236-24 ,5707-24.odt 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5191 OF 2024

¶4

Vijay Ramrao Karadbhajane and anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and others. With

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5707 OF 2024

¶6

Vijay Ramrao Karadbhajane vs. State of Maharashtra and others. With

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 5236 OF 2024

¶8

Sanjay Mulchand Gupta and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others.

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶10

Mr. A. V. Khare, Advocate for petitioners in all WPs. Mr. S. M. Ukey, Additional Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent no.3-VIDC in all WPs. Mr. P. S. Wathore, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 5 in all WPs.

¶11

CORAM :- ANIL S. KILOR and RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATE :- 3^rd SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶12

P. C.

¶13

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondent no.3 without following due process of law acquired certain portion of the land owned by the petitioners for rehabilitation.

¶15

In Writ Petition No.5191 of 2024 land Survey No.67 is in question. According to the petitioners, the land to the extent of 25R from aforesaid land Survey No.67 has been acquired by the respondent no.3 without following due process. It is further argued that no compensation is paid for acquiring the said land. It is further argued that from last five years, the respondent no.3 is in possession of the said land. It is argued that the respondent no.3 has not only removed the compound wall but also cut the trees standing on the said land and as such caused damage to the land of the petitioners.

¶16

46-WP-5191-2024, 5236-24 ,5707-24.odt 2

¶17

In Writ Petition No. 5707 of 2024, land bearing Survey No.69 is in question and the allegations are, the land to the extent of 2R has been acquired by the respondent no.3 without following due process or paying any compensation. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 5236 of 2024, the respondent no.3 has allegedly taken possession illegally of the land of the petitioners to the extent of 15R.

¶18

The petitioners are thus claiming compensation towards the acquisition made by the respondent no.3-VIDC.

¶19

In reply, the respondent no. 3 clarified the position and submitted that the original proposal for acquisition was of lands Survey Nos. 59, 60, 61/1,62, 63, 64/1, 64/2 at Mouza-Badegaon. However, considering the objections raised by the adjoining land owners of Survey Nos. 62 and 63, re-measurement was carried out and a new map was prepared correcting the boundaries vide order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saoner, dated 20.10.2023. Thus, a categorical statement is made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 that not a single inch land of the petitioners is needed or the respondent no.3 is intended to acquire. It is further stated that even the respondent no.3 does not have any possession over the land owned by the petitioners because of reduction in the total area of the acquired land.

¶20

In that view of the matter and considering the statement made by the respondent no.3, nothing survives for adjudication in these writ petitions. However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that because of cutting of trees and removal of compound wall, the petitioners have suffered damages.

¶21

The respondent no.3 disputes the aforesaid position.

¶22

In the circumstances, if any damage is caused to the petitioners, they may avail the appropriate remedy as permissible and available in law, claiming such damages.

¶23

46-WP-5191-2024, 5236-24 ,5707-24.odt 3

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶25

( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶26

Andurkar.

¶27

Signed by: Jayant S. Andurkar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 04/09/2025 19:58:36

Sanjay Mulchand Gupta and Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Rehabilitaion Dept., Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Mulchand Gupta and Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Rehabilitaion Dept., Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S. Food World Restaurant, Thr. Its Proprietor, Mohammad Asim Ali vs Maha. State Road Transport Corp., (Msrtc), Thr. Chief General Manager, Mumbai and Ors.

Shekhar S/O Suwalal Nagpure vs Union of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, New Delhi and Ors.

Vijay Ramrao Karadbhajane and Another vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Rehabilitaion Dept., Nagpur and Others

Niranjana Wd/O Gajanan Bhalerao and Another Vs Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapith, Akola, Thr. Registrar, Akola and Others

Vijay Ramrao Karadbhajane and Another vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Rehabilitaion Dept., Nagpur and Others

Sms Limited, Thr. Authorised Representative, Mr. Ujjwal M. Garg, Dy. Manager (Coal Mining) and Anr. vs the Western Coalfields Ltd. Thr. Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Coal Estate and Ors.