Suryakant Gajanan Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra through… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2025)

Suryakant Gajanan Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra through… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent nos. 2 to 5 directed to decide the representation within 16 weeks; petitioner permitted to resubmit a comprehensive proposal/representation with additional documents; decision to follow after hearing with liberty of legal assistance; claim to be decided on its own merits with all contentions kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent nos. 2 to 5 should be directed to decide the petitioner's pending representation seeking enhanced compensation for the acquired land. +1 more

Court's answer

Respondent nos. 2 to 5 directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of 16 weeks.

Ratio / Principle

In the meantime, the petitioner is permitted to resubmit a comprehensive proposal or representation with any documents he deems fit to substantiate his grievance.

Key takeaways

The concerned authorities shall decide the petitioner's grievances after giving an opportunity of hearing, with the petitioner at liberty to have legal assistance.ratio¶5
The Court made no comment on the petitioner's entitlement to enhancement of compensation or to receive any compensation; entitlement was left undetermined by this Court.ratio¶6
The respondent authority shall decide the petitioner's claim on its own merits; all contentions are kept open.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur), Writ Petition No. 7868 of 2024, decided 13 November 2025 (M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.) — Suryakant Gajanan Swami v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Petitioner claimed to be owner/possessor of Inam land (Gat No. 346, 8 Acre 76 R, Daphalapur, Tal. Jath, Dist. Sangli), stated to be Devasthan land, acquired by respondent nos. 2–3 with compensation granted under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; his notice dated 18.12.2021 and representation dated 19.01.2022 to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jath, Dist. Sangli, seeking enhanced compensation were neither decided nor answered. Held: (i) respondent nos. 2 to 5 directed to decide the representation within 16 weeks; (ii) petitioner free meanwhile to resubmit a comprehensive proposal/representation with supporting documents; (iii) decision to follow after hearing, petitioner at liberty to have legal assistance; (iv) the Court expressly made no comment on entitlement to enhancement or to any compensation — the claim is to be decided on its own merits with all contentions kept open; (v) petitioner to submit proposal within two weeks, AGP undertaking to communicate the order. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. (Paras 4–8)

31-7868-2024-CWP-K=.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 7868 OF 2024

Digitally signed by UDAY UDAY SHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAP JAGTAP Date:2025.11.14 21:15:40 +0530

Suryakant Gajanan Swami … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondent

Mr. Ramdas Shelake a/w Ms. Vaishnavi Shelake, Mr. Swapnil Lokare, Nikhil Dharmadhikari for the Petitioner. Ms. T.J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent - State.

Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. Date : November 13, 2025.

P. C. :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner

is the owner and possessor of Inam land located in Gat No. 346, admeasuring 8 Acre, 76 R, situated at Daphalapur, Tal. Jath, Dist. Sangli. He would submit that the land is in fact Devasthan land. He would further submit that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have acquired the petitioner’s subject matter land and has granted compensation to the

1 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

31-7868-2024-CWP-K=.doc

petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He would further submit that being aggrieved by and dissatisied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner has presented the representation to the Sub-Divisional Oicer, Jath, Dist. Sangli on 19^th January 2022. He would submit that even prior before this representation, notice was also sent to the concerned authority on 18^th December 2021. Learned counsel would submit that despite this representation and notice, neither any enhanced compensation is paid to the petitioner nor even any response is received by the petitioner. As such, he would submit that directions may be issued to the concerned Oicer to decide this representation and to grant enhanced compensation.

3. Learned AGP would submit that from the record it reveals that representation iled by the petitioner as also the notice given by the petitioner, are not yet decided nor responded by the concerned authority.

4. In view of this, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent nos. 2 to 5 to decide the representation iled by the petitioner within a period of 16 weeks from today. In the meantime, the petitioner may

2 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

31-7868-2024-CWP-K=.doc

resubmit comprehensive proposal or representation before the concerned authority by adding any such documents as he deems it to substantiate his grievance.

5. Needless to mention that the concerned authorities shall decide the grievances of the petitioner by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who shall be at liberty to have legal assistance.

6. We make it clear that we have not commented on the entitlement of the petitioner to get any enhancement in the compensation as also his entitlement to receive any compensation. The respondents authority shall decide the claim of the petitioner on its own merits. All contentions are kept open.

7. Learned counsel would submit that petitioner would submit his proposal as allowed by this Court within two weeks from today. Learned AGP undertakes to inform the respondent authority of this order forthwith.

8. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Order accordingly.

[Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ]

[ M. S. Karnik ]

3 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap