Shankar Nillapa Dhub and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Collector Rehabilitation and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shankar Nillapa Dhub and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Collector Rehabilitation and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 2nd February 2024 of the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Kolhapur quashed and set aside; representation remanded to the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Kolhapur for reconsideration with decision on or before 30th June 2026 and all contentions expressly kept open; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Kolhapur failed to take into consideration certain contentions raised in the petitioners' representation, warranting quashing of the impugned order and a fresh decision on the representation.

Court's answer

The contentions raised in the representation were not taken into consideration by the Deputy Collector; accordingly the impugned order dated 2nd February 2024 passed by the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Kolhapur is quashed and set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners' representation is remanded back to the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Kolhapur for reconsideration.

Key takeaways

The impugned order was set aside only on the ground that all the contentions raised in the subject representation were not considered; the merits of those contentions were not decided.ratio¶29
The Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Kolhapur is directed to decide the said representation on or before 30th June 2026.ratio¶29
All the contentions raised in the representation are expressly kept open for fresh decision by the authority.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur (Madhav J. Jamdar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ.), by common order dated 23 March 2026 disposed of three connected writ petitions (Nos. 6974, 6837 and 6963 of 2025). Counsel for the petitioners confined relief to a direction that the authorities decide the petitioners' representations afresh, contending that contentions at pages 250–251 of the representation dated 4th December 2022 (annexed to W.P. 6974/2025) — regarding 100% compensation recipients unable to repurchase land for self-resettlement and prior selective rehabilitation-grant allotments in Kolhapur and Sindhudurg districts — had been ignored. Holding that this contention was not taken into consideration by the Deputy Collector, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 2nd February 2024 passed by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Kolhapur, remanded the representation for reconsideration with a deadline of 30th June 2026, expressly kept all contentions open, and made no order as to costs.

19-6974-2025-CWP=.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 6974 OF 2025

Digitally Shankar Nillapa Dhub And Anr … Petitioners signed by UDAY UDAY SHIVAJI Versus SHIVAJI JAGTAP JAGTAP Date:2026.03.2411:06:11 The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector … Respondents

+0530 Rehabilitation and Ors.

ALONG WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 6837 OF 2025

Dastgir Rajesh Chadedar And Anr … Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector … Respondents Rehabilitation and Ors.

ALONG WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 6963 OF 2025

Parshu Topanna Jinrale, Deceased Thr Lrs … Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Collector … Respondents Rehabilitation and Ors.

Mr. Vikrant Anand Desai for the Petitioners.

Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent – State in WP 6974/2025. Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for Respondent – State in WP 6837/2025. Mr. A.A. Naik, AGP for Respondent – State in WP 6963/2025.

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR & PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.

1 of 4

Uday S. Jagtap

19-6974-2025-CWP=.doc

DATE : 23^rd MARCH, 2026.

P. C. :

1. Heard Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Kalel, Mr. Mali and Mr. Naik, learned AGPs for the respondent – State in respective petitions.

2. As the issues involved in all these Writ Petitions are identical, these petitions are taken up for hearing together.

3. Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has confined his relief to the alternate prayer of directing the authorities to decide the petitioners’ representation afresh. It is his submission that certain points, which are mentioned in the representation are not taken into consideration. To substantiate the said contention, he points out the contentions raised on page 250 and 251 in the representation dated 4^th December 2022, annexed to Writ Petition No. 6974 of 2025. The relevant portion reads as under :-

"मौजेतेरणीयेथील् याजमीनीवरतीआमचीउपिजिवकावाा�नुवा�चालायची् या सुिपकजमीनीआं्हीिवनातराररयायीजमीनमागणीनकरता१००% मोबदला रकमिवकाूनताबािदलेलाआहे. िनवाडयारमाणेिमळाले्यारकमेम्ये रक्परतअ्यि3काणीजमीनखरेदीघेवूनवतःचेपुनव�सनकूनघेवूशकत नाही्हणून्यालासहकाय�्हावेहाचउदेश3ेवून१९७६पूव> पासूनआपलेकडील शासनिनण�यारमाणेजेरक्परत१००% रकमउचलकरतात् यांनापुन�वसन व् अनुदानदेयआहे. यारमाणेसंपूण�महाराटराजाम्येपुनव�सनअनुदानवाटप

2 of 4

Uday S. Jagtap

19-6974-2025-CWP=.doc

केलेलेआहे. यापूव> मा. उपिज्हािBकारी (भूसंपदन) सोको्हापूरयांनीता. आजरा, िज. को्हापूर येथील उचंगी ल.पा. तालावाम्ये रं. भूसं-६/वे्छा - उचंगी/एसआर/४७/९९अ, ब, क, ड/कािव-९२, िदनाक१५/०४/२०१७रोजी्या िनवाडयावारे मौजे उचंगी, मौजे जेऊर, मौजे िचतळे, या गावातील बािBत रक्परतांनावे्छापुनव�सनअनुदानवाटपकेलेलेआहे. ता. आजरायेथील आंबेओहळरक्पातीलआदा�ळकरपेवाडी, उतूरयागावातीलरक्परतांना वे्छापुनव�सनअंितमिनवाडािदनांक१७/११/२०१४रमाणेवे्छापुनव�सन अनुदानवाटपकेलेलेआहे. तसेचको्हापूरिज्हातीलता. भुदरगडयेथील नागणवाडील.पा. तलावातीलमौजेबारवे, मौजें दडेवाडी, मौजेमुरकुटे, येथील रक्् रतांनादेखीलिदनांक१८/०३/२०१६चेअंितमिनवाडयारमाणेपुनव�सन अनुदानदेणेतआलेलेआहे. तसेचमौजेतळेरे, ता. कणकवली, िज. सBुदुग�येथील ल.पा. तलावतळेरेमBीलबािBतरक्परतांनादेखीलडेकर२/उपिज/भूसं/ िजम/वेपुअिन / उपिज्हािBकारी (भूसंपादन) िज्हामु्यालयंसदुदुग�याअंितम िनवाडयादवारेवे्छापुनव�सनअनुदानवाटपकरतआहेत. सदरपुनव�सन अिBिनयमानुसारयापुव> देखीलसंपूण�महाराटाम्येपुनव�सनअनुदानवाटपकेलेले आहे.”

4. The above contention has not been taken into consideration by the Deputy Collector. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 2^nd February 2024 passed by the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Kolhapur is quashed and set aside and the said representation dated 4^th December 2023 by the petitioners is remanded back to the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Kolhapur for reconsideration.

5. The impugned order has been set aside only on the ground that all the contentions raised in the subject representation are not considered. The Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Kolhapur shall decide the said representation on or before 30^th June 2026. It is specifically clarified that all the contentions are expressly kept open.

3 of 4

Uday S. Jagtap

19-6974-2025-CWP=.doc

6. The Writ Petitions are disposed of in the above terms with no order

as to costs.

[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. ]

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

4 of 4

Uday S. Jagtap