Vasant S/O. Kisanrao Banode v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary (Road and Transport Ministry) Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC11 Mar 2026WP/3861/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition compensation claim; Survey Nos. 251, 252, 273; road construction without notice or compensation; mutation entry correction; disputed questions of fact; Zilla Parishad and Government land records; writ petition disposed with liberty to file fresh proceedings; State of Maharashtra (Road and Transport Ministry); Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Kilor & Wakode JJ.; decided 11-03-2026; WP 3861/2024; no quantum, no statutory or precedent citations.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings as permissible under the law; no monetary relief granted. ¶¶23

Vasant S/O. Kisanrao Banode vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary (Road and Transport Ministry) Mumbai and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings as permissible under the law; no monetary relief granted.

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's three lands (Survey Nos. 251, 252 and 273) were acquired for construction of a road without payment of compensation or issuance of notices, warranting relief in writ jurisdiction. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

Prima facie, nothing on record indicates that land Survey Nos. 251 and 252 are owned by the petitioner.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

No road has been constructed on land Survey No. 273, which is admittedly recorded in the name of the petitioner.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

As disputed questions of fact are involved, the petitioner must establish the claimed facts by leading evidence and by initiating necessary proceedings for correction of the mutation entries in respect of land Survey Nos. 251 and 252.ratio¶¶22
If the petitioner contends that the lands belong to him but were wrongly recorded in the name of the Government and the Zilla Parishad respectively, he will have to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), W.P. No. 3861 of 2024, decided 11th March 2026 by Anil S. Kilor and Raj D. Wakode, JJ. Petitioner Vasant s/o Kisanrao Banode alleged that his three lands (Survey Nos. 251, 252 and 273) had been acquired for road construction without payment of compensation or issuance of notices. The learned AGP replied that Survey No. 252 stands in the name of the Zilla Parishad and Survey No. 251 in the name of the Government, and that no road has been constructed on Survey No. 273, admittedly recorded in the petitioner's name. Holding that prima facie nothing on record showed the petitioner owned Survey Nos. 251 and 252 and that disputed questions of fact were involved, the court directed the petitioner to establish his claim by leading evidence and to initiate proceedings for correction of the mutation entries, or take other appropriate steps in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file appropriate proceedings as permissible under the law; no compensation was awarded and no statute or precedent was relied upon.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:4144-DB

¶2

913-WP-3861-2024.odt 1/2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3861 OF 2024

¶5

VASANT S/O. KISANRAO BANODE

¶6

Vs.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY (ROAD AND TRANSPORT MINISTRY) MUMBAI AND OTHERS

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________

¶9

appearances, Court's orders of directions

¶10

Court's or Judge's orders.

¶11

and Registrar's Orders.

¶12

Mrs. Swati K. Paunikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. V. Palshikar, AGP for the State.

¶13

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 11 th MARCH, 2026.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

The grievance of the petitioner is that he owns three

¶17

lands, namely, Survey Nos.251, 252 and 273. It is further the case of the petitioner that though the said lands were acquired for construction of a road, no compensation has been paid nor any notices were issued in that regard.

¶18

In reply, the learned AGP points out that land Survey No.252 stand in the name of Zilla Parishad, whereas land Survey No.251 stands in the name of Government. It is further

¶19

pointed out from the map that no road has been constructed over land Survey No. 273, which is admittedly recorded in the name of the petitioner.

¶20

913-WP-3861-2024.odt 2/2

¶21

In the circumstances, prima facie, nothing on record indicates that land Survey Nos.251 and 252 are owned by the petitioner. It is further noted that no road has been constructed on land Survey No.273.

¶22

Despite the same, the petitioner is still maintaining that all the three lands belong to him and that a road has been constructed on the said lands. Since disputed questions of facts are involved, the petitioner will have to establish the aforesaid facts by leading evidence and by initiating necessary proceedings for correction of the mutation entries in respect of land Survey Nos. 251 and 252. If it is the case of the petitioner that though both the lands belong to him, the same have been wrongly recorded in the name of the Government and the Zilla Parishad respectively, the petitioner will have to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶23

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings as permissible under the law.

¶24

( RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶25

MJ Jadhav

Vasant S/O. Kisanrao Banode v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary (Road and Transport Ministry) Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasant S/O. Kisanrao Banode v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary (Road and Transport Ministry) Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lakhan S/O Madhukar Rathod and Another vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Rural Devpt. Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Prakruti Foundation, Thr. Its President, Deepak Bharatsingh Dixit vs Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and Others

Yashwant Vitthalrao Patil vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai and Ors.

Rajesh S/O Narayanrao Chatur vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development, Mumbai and Others

M/S Clean Coal Enterprises Private Limited, Bilaspur, Thr. Auth. Sign., Ashish Agrawal vs M/S Maharashtra State Mining Corp. Ltd., Thr. Managing Director, Nagpur and Ors.

Lakhan S/O Madhukar Rathod and Another vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Rural Devpt. Dept., Mumbai and Ors.