Shreeji Investments LLP vs Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Settlement Authority at Aurangabad

Mr. Yogesh Naidu a/w Adv. Eden Ribeiro for the Petitioner. Ms. Prachi Tatake, Addl. G. P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr. Rohit Gaikwad for Respondent No.2-BMC.

¶13

¶14

CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 2^nd APRIL 2026

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

. Heard Mr. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶17

This petition reflects the plight of the petitioner as regards delay in disposal of reference proceeding by the respondent-Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Settlement Authority (LARR) under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2013’ for short). It is brought to our notice that the reference was instituted as far back as on 17^th August 2022. Thereafter, on 15^th November 2022, ‘No WS’ order was passed. But, subsequently, on 16^th January 2023, the said order was set aside and an opportunity was granted to the respondents therein to file their written statement. The petitioner

bipin prithiani

2

7-wp-1467.26.doc

seeking enhancement of compensation, filed an affidavit in lieu of evidence immediately thereafter, but we are informed that, till date, written statement has not been placed on record. The copy of the Roznama is tendered and the same is taken on record and marked ‘X’. The Roznama shows that the proceedings before the LARR are languishing and date after date is allotted with no progress in the matter at all. The last date of the Roznama shows that proceedings was adjourned at the Pune camp of the LARR on 12^th February 2026 for the next date of 12^th March 2026.

¶22

We are informed that now the proceedings are adjourned to 9^th April 2026, with no progress in the matter at all.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors., (2024) 10 SCC 533 , to contend that such lack of progress in the reference proceeding eventually violates constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which has been recognized as a human right by the Supreme Court in a series of judgments.

¶24

We are informed that a single officer is appointed as the authority i.e. LARR for various regions of western Maharashtra and Konkan. The same officer moves between Nashik and Pune and at all these sittings in both the places, hundreds of such references are listed, as a consequence of which, there is virtually no progress in the matters.

bipin prithiani

3

7-wp-1467.26.doc

Although, this petition only seeks a direction to LARR to dispose of the dispute/reference preferred by the petitioner, in a time bound manner, we find that unless a holistic solution is found, a direction issued in that regard by this Court may remain a hollow direction.

¶29

We are further informed that there are certain petitions pending in this Court raising this very issue, in which the learned Advocate General had appeared.

¶30

We also find that in the light of the directions we intend to issue in this petition, it would be appropriate that the State of Maharashtra, through the Department of Revenue, is added as a respondent in this petition. Leave is granted to the petitioner to add State of Maharashtra as a respondent and consequently, to amend the pleadings and grounds of the writ petition. The amendment be carried out within one week from today. Reverification is dispensed with.

¶31

Issue notice, returnable on 29^th April 2026, to be included in the supplementary list.

¶32

The learned AGP waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3 as well as the newly added respondent-State of Maharashtra. Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

¶33