Allowed¶32

Vitthal Sukhdeo Gawhale v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Akola Represented by Land Acquisition Officer, Akola and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Jan 2025WP/5262/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land Acquisition Act 1894; Section 28-A; Section 18; enhanced compensation; undertaking furnished; rejection of application; Collector; order set aside; remand for fresh decision; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Writ Petition No. 5087 of 2024; W.P. 5261/2024; W.P. 5262/2024; W.P. 5263/2024; Baliram Ramaji Ghate v. State of Maharashtra 2010(5) Mh.L.J. 465; Motiram Zingar Wawre v. State of Maharashtra CRA No. 113/2015; R. M. Joshi J.; impugned order dated 27/07/2023; decision dated 27/06/2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27/07/2023 set aside; proceedings relegated to the Collector for fresh decision after hearing both sides; all four Writ Petitions disposed of in those terms. ¶32

Vitthal Sukhdeo Gawhale vs State of Maharashtra, Thr… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 27/07/2023 set aside; proceedings relegated to the Collector for fresh decision after hearing both sides; all four Writ Petitions disposed of in those terms.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether obtainment/furnishing of an undertaking by the claimants precludes them from seeking enhancement of compensation under Sections 18 and 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶30

Court's answer

In view of the Judgments in Baliram Ghate and Motiram Wawre (supra), which Respondent No.2 conceded represented the correct position of law, obtainment of an undertaking does not preclude the Petitioners from seeking enhancement of compensation; accordingly the impugned order rejecting the Section 28-A applications cannot sustain and is set aside.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings are relegated back to the Collector for decision afresh after hearing both sides.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), R. M. Joshi, J. (Oral Order, 27 June 2025) - Four connected Writ Petitions (Nos. 5087, 5261, 5262 and 5263 of 2024) challenged orders dated 27/07/2023 by which Respondent No.1 rejected the petitioners' applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the basis of undertakings furnished by them, and consequently held them not entitled to enhanced compensation under Sections 18 and 28-A of the Act. Placing reliance on Baliram Ramaji Ghate V/s State of Maharashtra, 2010(5) Mh.L.J. 465 (Division Bench) and Motiram Zingar Wawre V/s State of Maharashtra (Civil Revision Application No. 113/2015, Co-ordinate Bench), counsel contended that obtainment of an undertaking does not preclude seeking enhancement of compensation; Respondent No.2, though opposing, conceded the position of law. Holding that in view of those judgments the impugned order cannot sustain, the Court set it aside and relegated the proceedings to the Collector for decision afresh after hearing both sides. All the Writ Petitions stood disposed of accordingly.

¶1

1/3 60.wp.5087.2024 aw connected petns..odt

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5087 OF 2024

¶4

Maltibai Onkar Gathekar

¶5

… PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Anr. … RESPONDENTS

¶8

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5261 OF 2024

¶9

Uttram Onkar Ingle … PETITIONER

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶12

… RESPONDENTS

¶13

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5262 OF 2024

¶14

Vitthal Sukhdeo Gawhale

¶15

… PETITIONER

¶16

Versus

¶17

State of Maharashtra & Anr. … RESPONDENTS

¶18

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5263 OF 2024

¶19

Dayaram Ramchandra Ingle … PETITIONER

¶20

Versus

¶21

State of Maharashtra & Anr. … RESPONDENTS

¶22

Mr. Parth Malviya, Advocate for Petitioner in all Writ Petitions. Mr. K. P. Mahalle, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in all Writ Petitions. Mr. H. D. Futane, AGP for Respondent No.1/State in all Writ Petitions.

¶23

2/3 60.wp.5087.2024 aw connected petns..odt

¶24

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : JUNE 27, 2025.

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

. Heard Mr. Parth Malviya, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.

¶27

K. P. Mahalle, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and Mr. H. D. Futane, learned AGP for the Respondent No.1/State.

¶28

These Petitions take exception to the order dated 27/7/2023 passed by the Respondent No.1 in rejecting application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the basis of undertaking furnished by the Petitioners and consequently holding that the Petitioners, therefore, are not entitled for the enhanced compensation under Section 18 and 28-A of the Act.

¶29

The learned Counsel for Petitioners has placed reliance on the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baliram Ramaji Ghate V/s State of Maharashtra and others, 2010(5) Mh.L.J. 465 and the Judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Motiram Zingar Wawre V/s State of Maharashtra in Civil Revision Application No. 113/2015 along with

¶30

other connected Revisions in order to canvass that obtainment of an undertaking will not preclude the Petitioners from seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶31

3/3 60.wp.5087.2024 aw connected petns..odt

¶32

The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, though opposes the Petitions, he has no option but to concede to the said position of law. In view of the Judgments in case of Baliram Ghate and Motiram Wawre (supra), the impugned order cannot sustain, hence it is set aside. The proceeding is relegated back to the Collector for decision afresh after hearing both sides.

¶33

All the Writ Petitions stand disposed of in above terms.

¶34

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶35

vijaya

¶36

Signed by: Mrs. V.G. Yadav Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 01/07/2025 16:53:02

Vitthal Sukhdeo Gawhale v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Akola Represented by Land Acquisition Officer, Akola and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Sukhdeo Gawhale v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Akola Represented by Land Acquisition Officer, Akola and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jayashree W/O Atul Tondare vs Atul @ Hemant Ramesh Tondare

Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers Ltd. Nagpur Thr. Authorized Signatory vs Bend Joints Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Thr. Director

Megha W/O Rahul Tayade vs Rahul S/O Arun Tayade

Uttam S/O Onkar Ingle vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Akola Represented by Land Acquisition Officer, Akola and Anr.

Maltibai W/O Onkar Gathekar vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Akola Represented by Land Acquisition Officer, Akola and Anr.

Deveshree Anup Taile vs Anup Onkarrao Taile