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

Bombay HC3 Sept 2025WP/5707/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition without compensation; illegal dispossession; VIDC respondent no.3; Mouza-Badegaon; Survey No.67; Survey No.69; 25R; 2R; 15R; re-measurement; boundary correction; Sub-Divisional Officer Saoner order dated 20.10.2023; cutting of trees; removal of compound wall; damages claim; appropriate alternative remedy; nothing survives for adjudication; writ petitions disposed; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Anil S. Kilor; Rajnish R. Vyas; 2025:BHC-NAG:8754-DB.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to pursue any claim for damages before the appropriate forum; no order as to costs. ¶¶24

Vijay Ramrao Karadbhajane vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Rehabilitaion Dept., Nagpur and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petitions disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to pursue any claim for damages before the appropriate forum; no order as to costs.

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no.3 (VIDC) acquired portions of the petitioners' land - 25R out of Survey No.67 (W.P. No. 5191 of 2024), 2R out of Survey No.69 (W.P. No. 5707 of 2024) and 15R (W.P. No. 5236 of 2024) - without following due process of law and without paying compensation. +1 more

¶¶14

Court's answer

Considering the statement made by respondent no.3 that no part of the petitioners' land is needed for acquisition and that respondent no.3 holds no possession over it following the re-measurement and boundary correction, nothing survives for adjudication in these writ petitions.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

If any damage was caused to the petitioners, they may avail the appropriate remedy as permissible and available in law for claiming such damages.

¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petitions Nos. 5191, 5707 and 5236 of 2024 (decided together): Landowners alleged that respondent no.3, VIDC, acquired or took possession of portions of their land - 25R out of Survey No.67, 2R out of Survey No.69, and 15R respectively - without due process or payment of compensation, and that for about five years VIDC remained in possession, removed the compound wall and cut trees standing on the land. VIDC clarified that the original acquisition proposal (Survey Nos. 59, 60, 61/1, 62, 63, 64/1, 64/2 at Mouza-Badegaon) was revised after objections by owners of Survey Nos. 62 and 63, that re-measurement and boundary correction followed by order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saoner dated 20.10.2023, and that not a single inch of the petitioners' land is needed and VIDC holds no possession over it. Holding that nothing survived for adjudication on this statement, and that if any damage was caused the petitioners may avail the appropriate remedy available in law for claiming damages, Anil S. Kilor and Rajnish R. Vyas, JJ. disposed of the writ petitions with no order as to costs (03.09.2025; Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:8754-DB).

¶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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Ramrao Karadbhajane 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.