Disposed

Sadhana Sunil Mhatre and Ors. v. the Competent Authority and the Sub Divisional Officer and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2026WP/4434/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the Respondents' claim for compensation regarding land acquisition by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority. The Court took consent terms on record after noting settlement between Petitioners 1, 3, 4, 5 and Respondent 4, and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the writ petition in terms of the consent terms executed by the parties.

Sadhana Sunil Mhatre and Ors. vs the Competent Authority and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

71-WP-4434-2025.DOC

¶2

PURTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY PRASAD

¶3

PARAB CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2026.03.16

¶4

19:17:57 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 4434 OF 2025

¶5

Sadhana Sunil Mhatre and Ors. …Petitioners Versus

¶6

The Competent Authority and The Sub Divisional Officer and Ors. …Respondents

¶7

Mr. Dushyant S. Pagare for the Petitioners.

¶8

Ms. S.D. Vyas, Addl. GP a/w Mr. A.R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent No.3 – State.

¶9

Mr. Vijay Killedar for Respondent No.4.

¶10

CORAM: MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE: 16^th MARCH 2026

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This Petition essentially raised a dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.4 towards claim of compensation regarding acquisition

¶13

of land undertaken for the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Respondent No.2).

¶14

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondent No.4 informed this Court that the dispute between the said parties have been settled and Consent Terms have been executed. The Consent Terms are tendered.

¶15

We find that the Consent Terms are signed by the Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 as well as Respondent No.4 and their respective Advocates. The Consent Terms is taken on record and marked “X”.

Page 1 of 2

Purti Parab

71-WP-4434-2025.DOC

The parties to the Consent Terms are directed to abide by their respective obligations as per the Consent Terms. Undertakings, if any, given in the Consent Terms are recorded as undertakings given to this Court.

¶20

The Writ Petition is disposed of as per the Consent Terms.

¶21

Pending applications, if any, are also stand disposed of.

¶22

At this stage, it is pointed out that Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and

¶23

Respondent No.4 are present in the Court and they are identified by their respective Advocates.

¶24

Petitioner No.2 has expired and it is brought to our notice that in the Consent Terms, it is agreed between the parties that if any dispute arises in the future with legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner No.2, the Respondent No.4 would appropriately settle the same.

¶25

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

¶26

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶27

Page 2 of 2

¶28

Purti Parab

Sadhana Sunil Mhatre and Ors. v. the Competent Authority and the Sub Divisional Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhana Sunil Mhatre and Ors. v. the Competent Authority and the Sub Divisional Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramdas Dnyanoba Buchade vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Ministry of Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Iifl Home Finance Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Kalyan Gas Services through D. M. Suchak vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors.

Anand Rajesham Mittapelli vs Capri Global Capital Limited

Aditya Yogesh Dhamdhere vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Department of Industries Energy and Labour and Ors.

Iifl Home Finance Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra Thro. Assi. Govt. Pleader