Shivram Laxman Morbekar vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shivram Laxman Morbekar vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.2 (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Center No.3, Panvel, Raigad) and respondent No.5 (Tahsildar, Panvel, Raigad) to decide the petitioner's applications dated 31 October 2022 and 22 August 2023 within six weeks, with respondent No.5-Tahsildar ensuring the appropriate measurement exercise so that the extent of land acquired from Survey No.243, Hissa No.1A and Survey No.243, Hissa No.1B is specifically identified; no opinion expressed on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Center No.3, Panvel, Raigad) and respondent No.5 (Tahsildar, Panvel, Raigad) should be directed to decide the petitioner's applications dated 31 October 2022 and 22 August 2023 seeking clarification, through a measurement exercise, of the extent of land acquired for respondent No.4 from Survey No.243, Hissa No.1A and Survey No.243, Hissa No.1B, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, and consequential mutation of revenue entries.

Court's answer

There was no necessity to adjourn the petition merely for the learned AGP to take instructions, because the limited relief sought by the petitioner deserved to be granted; the Court did not intend to make any comments on the merits of the petitioner's claim.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a): respondent No.2 (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Center No.3, Panvel, Raigad) and respondent No.5 (Tahsildar, Panvel, Raigad) are directed to decide the petitioner's applications dated 31 October 2022 and 22 August 2023 within a period of six weeks.

Key takeaways

In the process, respondent No.5-Tahsildar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, shall ensure the appropriate exercise of measurement is undertaken so that the extent of land acquired from Survey No.243, Hissa No.1A and Survey No.243, Hissa No.1B is specifically identified.ratio¶26
The Court expressly made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (Manish Pitale & Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ.) - Writ Petition No.8351 of 2024, decided 6 January 2026 - Shivram Laxman Morbekar v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Land acquisition - measurement/clarification of acquired extent. The petitioner had applied on 31 October 2022 and 22 August 2023 to the Tahsildar, Panvel (respondent No.5) for clarification of the extent of land acquired for respondent No.4 from Survey No.243, Hissa No.1A and Survey No.243, Hissa No.1B, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, so that balance land could be ascertained and revenue entries mutated; no response followed. Although the learned AGP sought time to take instructions, the Court found no necessity to adjourn as only limited relief was sought, and allowed the petition in terms of prayer clause (a): respondent No.2 (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Center No.3, Panvel, Raigad) and respondent No.5 (Tahsildar, Panvel, Raigad) were directed to decide both applications within six weeks, the Tahsildar ensuring the appropriate measurement exercise so the acquired extent is specifically identified. The Court expressly stated it had expressed no opinion on the merits. No statute or precedent was cited.

20-WP-8351-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.8351 OF 2024

Shivram Laxman Morbekar .. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors ..

Petitioner

.. Respondents

Mr. Suresh Kamble, for the Petitioner.

Mr. B. V. Sawant, for Addl GP with M. S. Bane, AGP for the Respondent Nos. Digitally signedby VARSHA 3 and 5. VARSHADEEPAK DEEPAKGAIKWADDate: GAIKWAD 2026.01.07 -------------------19:34:20 +0530

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 6TH JANUARY 2026.

PC:

Heard.

When the petition is called out for hearing, learned AGP seeks time to take instructions.

Having perused the contents of the petition and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we find that limited relief is sought in this petition.

The petitioner had submitted applications dated 31^st October,

2022 and 22^nd August, 2023, before the respondent No.5-Tahsildar seeking a clarification with regard to the extent of land acquired for

Sweety

1 of 3

20-WP-8351-2024.doc

respondent No.4 from Survey No.243, Hissa No.1A and Survey No.243, Hissa No.1B in Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. According to the petitioner, if the exercise of measurement is carried out, it would come out with clarity as to the extent of land acquired from the said survey numbers and the balance land remaining, if any, and in that context the revenue entries could be accordingly mutated.

We find that despite the applications having been preferred by the petitioner in the years 2022 and 2023, there is no response from the respondents. We do not think that there is any necessity to adjourn the present petition only for the learned AGP to take instructions, for the reason that the limited relief sought by the petitioner deserves to be granted. While disposing of the petition we do not intend to make any comments on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner and appropriate direction would be enough to satisfy the grievance raised in the present petition.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Accordingly respondent No.2 (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Center No.3, Panvel, Raigad), and Respondent No.5 (Tahsildar, Panvel, Raigad) are directed to decide applications dated 31^st October, 2022 and 22^nd August, 2023 filed by

2 of 3

Sweety

20-WP-8351-2024.doc

the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. In the process, Respondent No.5-Tahsildar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad shall ensure the appropriate exercise of measurement is undertaken so that the extent of land acquired from the aforesaid survey numbers is specifically identified.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

3 of 3

Sweety