Dhanraj Baburao Kothule and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2026)

Dhanraj Baburao Kothule and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition dismissed; petitioners at liberty to avail the statutory remedy under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in accordance with law; all rights and contentions of the parties kept open; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners were denied a meaningful/effective hearing on their objections during the land acquisition process, warranting quashing of the award dated 03/02/2026. +2 more

Court's answer

The mere fact that the impugned award was passed a day after hearing was afforded to the petitioners does not warrant a presumption that an effective hearing was not granted.

Ratio / Principle

Since the public notice inviting objections was issued on 23/12/2025 and the mandatory 30-day period prescribed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 lapsed before further steps were taken towards issuance of the award, and this requirement was complied with, the acquisition process cannot be said to have been rendered illegal in any manner.

Key takeaways

As the petitioners' essential grievance pertains to valuation and hence quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned award, the statutory remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act is available to them, and nothing prevents them from availing of that remedy in accordance with law.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Manish Pitale & Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ.), Writ Petition No. 4891 of 2026, decided 15th June 2026 — dismisses the petition of Dhanraj Baburao Kothule and others challenging a land acquisition award dated 03/02/2026. A public notice inviting objections was issued on 23/12/2025; objections filed in January 2026 were heard on 02/02/2026 and the award passed on 03/02/2026. The Court found substance in the AGP's contention that, the mandatory 30-day period under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 having lapsed after the notice before further steps towards issuance of the award, the process was not rendered illegal; and declined to accept that an award passed a day after the hearing justifies a presumption that no effective hearing was granted. Observing that the essential grievance concerned valuation and quantum of compensation, the Court pointed to the statutory remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act, dismissed the writ petition, kept all rights and contentions open, and disposed of pending applications.

3-WP-4891-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 4891 OF 2026

Dhanraj Baburao Kothule And Ors .. V/S.

Petitioners

The State Of Maharashtra Thr its .. Respondents Principal Secretary And Ors

Mr. Amay Deshpande with Harsh Nishar h/f Niyati Sontakke, for Petitioners.

Ms. Pooja Patil, AGP, for Respondent/State.

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA DEEPAK DEEPAK GAIKWAD GAIKWAD Date: 2026.06.16 10:57:36 +0530

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 15TH JUNE 2026.

PC:

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned AGP for the Respondent/State.

The grievance of the Petitioners in this petition appears to be that they were not granted a meaningful hearing on their objections during the process of acquisition of the subject land.

A copy of the award dated 03/02/2026 is on record. It shows that public notice inviting objections was issued on 23/12/2025. In response thereto, the petitioners appear to have submitted their objections on various dates in January 2026.

The stated case of the petitioners is that while they were heard

1 of 3

varsha

3-WP-4891-2026.doc

on their objections on 02/02/2026, immediately thereafter, on 03/02/2026, the award was passed. On this basis, it was submitted that an effective hearing was not granted, and on this ground itself, this Court may consider quashing the aforesaid award dated 03/02/2026.

We find substance in the contention of the learned AGP that since the aforesaid public notice inviting objections was issued on 23/12/2025 and as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, a period of 30 days was mandatorily required to lapse before further steps were taken towards issuance of the land acquisition award and that in the present case the said requirement was indeed complied with, it cannot be said that the process was rendered illegal in any manner.

We are unable to agree with the petitioners that merely because the impugned award was passed a day after hearing was afforded to the petitioners, it ought to be presumed that an effective hearing was not granted.

It appears that the essential grievance of the petitioners pertains to the valuation and, hence, quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned award. If that be so, a statutory remedy under Section 64 of the aforesaid Act is available to the petitioners. Nothing prevents the petitioners from availing of the said remedy in accordance with law.

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to avail of the aforesaid statutory remedy

2 of 3

varsha

3-WP-4891-2026.doc

under Section 64 of the said Act, in accordance with law. In that context, all rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

3 of 3

varsha