Chandrakant Gangaram Shinde and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through the G.P. and Ors.

¶1

35-WP-9962-2024.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 9962 OF 2024

¶4

Chandrakant Gangaram Shinde and Ors …Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra and Ors …Respondents

¶5

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10003 OF 2024

¶6

Dilip Kisanrao Shinde …Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra and Ors …Respondents

¶7

Mr. Aniesh Jadhav with Amisha Lolusare, for the Petitioners. Ms. S.D. Vyas, Addl. G.P.,with M.S. Bane, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Yogesh Vijay Patil, for the Respondent No. 6, MSRDC.

¶8

CORAM: MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE: 9^th JANUARY 2026.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6. In the peculiar facts of the present case, Respondent Nos.3 to 5 -

¶11

banks cannot be said to be contesting respondents and therefore even though they are not represented despite service, the hearing and disposal of this petition need not await their presence.

Page 1 of 7

Sweety

35-WP-9962-2024.DOC

By the present petition, the petitioners have challenged a notice dated 22nd February, 2024 issued by the Respondent No.2, i.e., the Competent Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer. By the said notice, the petitioners were called upon to refund excess amount allegedly paid to them in the context of acquisition of their land and structures standing thereon. It is claimed that after the award was pronounced on the basis of negotiations between the parties, in the light of a valuation report obtain subsequently, the Respondent No.2 found that an amount of Rs.1,10,48,308/- was paid in excess to the petitioners. The notice does not specify as to what was the basis for claiming that such excess amount was paid and copy of the valuation report was not even furnished to the petitioners.

¶16

The petitioners are also aggrieved by the communication dated 22nd February, 2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 to the Respondent Nos.3,4 and 5- banks, thereby freezing the accounts of the petitioners.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that proper opportunity of responding to the notice was not given to the petitioners and there is violation of natural justice even a copy of the valuation report is not furnished to the petitioners and a notice does not specify the ground on which, i.e., claimed on excess amount was paid. It is further submitted that there is no source of power for the Respondent No.2 to issue the impugned communication dated 22nd February, 2024 to the aforesaid

Page 2 of 7

Sweety

35-WP-9962-2024.DOC

respondent- banks to freeze the bank accounts of the petitioners. It is submitted that the impugned actions of the Respondent No.2 are wholly arbitrary and that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶22

On the other hand, the learned AGP learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the petitioners themselves had given an affidavit when the compensation was disbursed that they would refund any amount that may be subsequently found to be excessively disbursed to them. Attention of this Court was invited to the contents of the affidavit wherein it was stated on behalf of the petitioners that in case recovery of excess amount was occasion, same could be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue by records to the Provision of the Maharashtra, Land Revenue Court, 1960. It was submitted that this was a source of power for the Respondent No.2 to act against the petitioners.

¶23

Reference was made in the reply affidavit placed on record wherein it is stated that the subsequent valuation report revealed that one of the structures for which compensation was disbursed to the petitioners was not affected by the acquisition and the right of way. On this basis, it was submitted that petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for contesting Respondent No.6 supported the submissions of the Learned AGP. He further added that being the beneficiary under the acquisition and the body that made available the funds for disbursing compensation to the petitioners, the interest of the

Page 3 of 7

Sweety

35-WP-9962-2024.DOC

said respondent ought to be protected by this directing the petitioners to keep the excess amount available at all times, even if the present petition is to be considered positively.

¶29

We considered the rival submissions. We find that the award in the present case was issued pursuant to negotiation of the petitioners and Respondent No.2. The negotiations led to the Respondent No.2 as the competent authority offering compensation amount of Rs.2,68,90,129/(page 15). It is an admitted position that the entire amount was disbursed to the petitioners. Thereafter the impugned notice dated 22nd February, 2024 was issued, claiming that in the light of it being found that the valuation determined by the Public Works Department earlier was showing excessive amount payable to the petitioners and in the light of the said report the petitioners were required to refund excess amount of Rs.1,10,48,308/-. On the same day, Respondent No.2 issued the impugned communication dated 22nd February, 2024 to freeze the bank accounts of the petitioners.

¶30

We find that the notice dated 22nd February, 2024 does not referred to any specific ground of which it was found that the aforesaid excessive amount had been disbursed to the petitioners. It simply refers to a report submitted by the Public Works Departments stating that the violation determined earlier resulted in excessive amount being disbursed to the petitioners. There is nothing to show that the copy of the report was

Page 4 of 7

Sweety

35-WP-9962-2024.DOC

furnished to the petitioners. Thus the petitioners were hampered in effectively responding to the said notice dated 22nd February, 2024.

¶35

It is settled law in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gill versus Election Commission----- that the authorities have to justify their orders or notices on the basis of the contents thereof and that reasons cannot be supplied in affidavits filed in the Court. The reasons stated in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, cannot be considered at all as the petitioners in the first place never got an opportunity to meet the purported reason that one of the structures for which compensation was disbursed to the petitioners was actually not affected by the acquisition or the right of way. Therefore the impugned notice dated 22nd February, 2024 is found to be unsustainable.

¶36

As regards communication dated 22nd February, 2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 directing respondent banks to freeze the bank accounts of the petitioners, we failed to understand as to what was the source of power for the Respondent No.2 directs such a drastic action in the context of the petitions. Even of the source of such power is to be traced to the affidavit submitted by the petitioners while the compensation was disbursed to the effect that they would refund any excess amount disbursed to them, it is found that in the affidavit itself it is stated that if they fail to refund the amount, it would be recovered arrears of land acquisition under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Court, 1960. Therefore,

Page 5 of 7

Sweety

35-WP-9962-2024.DOC

there is no source of power for the Respondent No.2 in the facts and circumstances of the present case to issue the impugned communication dated 22nd February, 2024 whereby the bank accounts of petitioners were frozen.

¶41

In view of the above we find that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. This would certainly not preclude Respondent No.2 to issue a fresh notice to the petitioners. In accordance with law, by following principles of natural justice to seek recovery of alleged excessive payment of compensation made to them.

¶42

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in the following terms:

¶43

(I) The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Consequently, impugned notice dated 22nd February, 2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. Equally, the communication dated 22nd February, 2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 for freezing the bank accounts of the petitioners is also quashed and set aside.

¶44

(II) The Respondent No.2 would be at liberty to issue a fresh notice to the petitioners to claim refund of alleged excess amount of compensation disposed to them. Such a notice shall state the grounds on which such recovery is contemplated and copy of the report of the Public Works Department upon stated that the earlier valuation was found to be erroneous shall be furnish to the petitioners along with the fresh notice.

Page 6 of 7

Sweety

35-WP-9962-2024.DOC

(III) Respondent No.2 grant shall grant reasonable time to the petitioners to respond to such a fresh notice, if any.

¶49

(IV) In the event the Respondent No.2 comes to a conclusion after considering the response of the that the amount is recoverable from them and issues an order in that context, such an order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks from the date of service of the order on the petitioners.

¶50

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

¶51

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶52

Page 7 of 7

¶53

Sweety

Chandrakant Gangaram Shinde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through the G.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Gangaram Shinde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through the G.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bharati G Patel and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Government Pleader and Ors.

Bharati G Patel and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Government Pleader and Ors.

Bharati G Patel and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Government Pleader and Ors.

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

Sarubai Sahadu Wadghule vs the Deputy Collector Land Acquisition Pune and Ors.

Anirudha Manohar Khopade and Ors. vs the Union of India Throu. Sec. Compent Authority and Land Acquitision and Ors.