Ivrcl Limited vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-OS:13845
WP-183-2015.doc
Priyanka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1830 OF 2015
IVRCL Limited formerly known as ]
IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd., ]
a Company duly incorporated under ]
the provisions of Companies Act, ]
and having its registered office at ]
M-22/3 RT Vijay Nagar Colony, ]
Hyderabad-500 057 and a branch ]
st
Office at 1 floor, Lansnar Residency ]
Plot No.G84, Sector 20, CBD Belapur ]
Navi Mumbai 400 614. ] … Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra ]
2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Mumbai ]
Suburban District, an officers ]
Appointed under the provisions of ]
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code ]
And having its office at Administrative ]
th
Building, 9 floor, Near Chetna ]
College, Bandra (East), ]
Mumbai 400 051. ]
3. Tahsildar (Kurla), having its office at ]
Mulund College of Commerce, Corner ]
Topiwala College Compound, ]
Nayadu Road, Mulund (W), ]
Mumbai 400 080. ]
1/22
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
NAMDEO
SONAWANE
Date:
2026.06.23
10:04:07
+0530
SUMEDH
NAMDEO
SONAWANE
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
4. Collector (Appeals), ]
Mumbai Suburban District, ]
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ]
5. Addl. Commissioner, ]
Konkan Division, Old Secretariat, ]
Jehangir Art Gallery, ]
Mumbai 400 023. ] …Respondents
Ms. Shilpa Kapil a/w Adv. Shruti Bhatt for the Petitioner.
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 – State.
CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.
th
RESERVED ON : 15 June 2026.
nd
PRONOUNCED ON : 22 June 2026.
JUDGMENT :
1) The present Petition lamentably is the second round of
litigation. In the first round, the Petitioner had challenged the Order
th th
dated 30 March 2013 and Demand Notice dated 29 April 2013 in
th
Writ Petition No.1456 of 2013. By an Order dated 13 September 2013
the matter was remitted back to the Respondents No. 5 (Additional
Commissioner) for de novo consideration.
2) The Additional Commissioner reheard the matter and
th
passed the impugned Order dated 14 November 2014. A Demand
th
Notice dated 13 January 2015 was issued calling upon the Petitioner
to make payment of an amount of 54,08,811/-. ₹
3) The Petitioner’s concern is about the mechanical and
2/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
casual approach on the part of the concerned authorities as they have
wrongfully applied the provisions of Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC) for the Petitioner’s act of
transferring the excavated material from one part of the campus to the
other.
Brief facts :
4) The Petitioner being in the business of construction of road
and other infrastructure products, was awarded a work order No.
th
DCSE/HEAD/(PCD)/IITB/WO/C&C/325/01-10 dated 12 January 2010
by Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India through
Directorate of Construction Services and Estate Management for the
construction of the ‘Computer Center and Computer Sciences and
Engineering Complex’ including internal Public Health Works and PVC
Conduit System for electrical for IIT, Powai at Mumbai. The said work
order contemplated the work to be completed within a period of 18
months upon the terms and conditions stated therein. The relevant
part of the work order is reproduced herein below:
“Disposing off the surplus excavated materials by
mechanical transport lead upto 3 KM to the nearby
dumping pits / dumping areas with in IIT campus as
identified by statutory authorities, including all leads,
lifts, loading, unloading, stacking, spreading, leveling
etc. complete as per specifications and as directed by the
EIC”
3/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
5) As per the clause, the surplus excavated material was to be
disposed of within 3 kms in the dumping pits and areas within the IIT
campus. The Petitioner carried out the work strictly in accordance
with the terms and conditions and directions issued by the Senior
Project Engineer of the Directorate of Construction Services and Estate
Management and as per the condition, kept the excavated material
within the IIT campus. Despite carrying out the work in accordance
with the work order, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) issued a Show
nd
Cause Notice dated 22 October 2010 alleging that the Petitioner had
excavated 3800 brass of minor minerals unauthorizedly. The Show
Cause Notice issued under Section 29(4) of the Mumbai Minor
Minerals Act, 1955 alleging that the Petitioners had failed to obtain
necessary permission from the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The
Show Cause Notice held the Petitioner liable for penal action under
Section 48(7) of MLRC.
th
6) The Petitioner attended the inquiry on 25 October 2010
and asked the SDO to grant them time to respond to the Show Cause
Notice which would be issued through their legal department. However,
the said time was refused on the ground that it was merely a formality
for the purposes of revenue records. In the said meeting the
Petitioner’s Representative was asked some questions about the
excavation which was noted down by the Respondent No.2. The
4/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
Representative of the Petitioner clearly informed the Respondent that
they have not committed any offence or violation of the said work
order and that the excavation work was carried out solely for the
purpose of erecting building as per the work order. Without noting any
of the submissions of the Representative of the Petitioner, the SDO
asked the Representative to sign a statement maintaining that this
inquiry and recording was a formality for the purposes of revenue and
other records.
7) Believing the SDO, the Petitioner continued the
construction work in the IIT, Powai campus. Despite being informed
that the inquiry was merely a formality, the SDO issued an Order dated
st
1 November 2010 imposing a penalty of ₹ 54,08,811/- on the
Petitioner for not obtaining permission for excavation as the ownership
of minor minerals vested in the Government.
th
8) The Demand Notice was issued on 6 December 2010
requiring the Petitioner to pay the penalty amount within a period of 7
days failing which necessary action for recovery of the same would be
initiated. This communication was brought to the attention of the
Senior Project Engineer of Directorate of Construction, Services and
Estate Management, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of
India, who was requested to issue a certificate stating that the
excavated material was kept within the IIT campus for the purpose of
5/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
leveling the low lying areas as per the aforesaid terms of the work
th
order. Accordingly, the Senior Project Engineer by his letter dated 4
January 2011 addressed to the Petitioner categorically and
unambiguously confirmed that all excavated material from the said
work was kept within the IIT campus.
9) Aggrieved by this decision the Petitioner filed an Appeal
before the Collector. Even after hearing the Advocate for the Petitioner,
th
the Collector confirmed the order of the SDO by order dated 10 March
2011. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before
the Additional Commissioner who also dismissed the Appeal and
th
upheld the order of the Collector vide an Order dated 30 March 2011.
Upon the dismissal of the Appeal, the Tahsildar issued a Demand
th
Notice dated 24 April 2013 once again calling upon the Petitioner to
make a payment of ₹ 54,08,811/-. This order and notice were
challenged in Writ Petition No. 1456 of 2013 by the Petitioner.
10) Without communicating the Order of the Additional
th
Commissioner’s Order dated 14 November 2014, a Demand Notice
th th
dated 13 January 2015 was issued to the Petitioner on 15 July 2015
calling upon them to pay the penalty of 54,08,811/-. It is in these ₹
circumstances; the present Petition is filed.
11) Ms. Kapil representing the Petitioner submits that there is
no dispute about the fact that the excavation was done and the
6/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
excavated material was kept within the campus of IIT, Powai. This
work was being carried out as per the work order issued by the
Government of India through the Department of Atomic Energy and
their Directorate of Construction of Services and Estate Management.
12) She submits that the provisions of Section 48(7) of MLRC
do not apply to the Petitioner as the work does not qualify as work
contemplated under the said Section. She contends that IIT have been
in possession of the said land since its specific allotment. Therefore,
State Government does not have a reservation for the earth found on
the said land. Consequently, the interpretation that: digging the land
for creating a foundation is equal to excavating mineral products, given
by the authorities frustrates the very intention of the grant in favour
of IIT.
13) She submits that the express condition of the contract was
that the surplus excavated material was to be disposed by
mechanically transporting the same to the nearby dumping pits within
the three kilometers radius that was identified by the statutory
authorities. The Petitioner, therefore, acted in accordance with the
express terms of the contract for disposing the excavated material
within the IIT campus. The concerned authorities failed to appreciate
that the Petitioner was carrying out the work as a sub-contractor and
therefore was an agent of a disclosed principle; who was not liable for
7/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
any act of commission of offence or violation by the principal.
14) She further submitted that the Petitioner cannot be held
liable for violating any statutory provisions when they have followed
the express mandate under the works contract / Order. The Show
Cause Notice, if any, ought to have been served upon the Directorate of
Construction, Services and Estate Management, Government of India,
Department of Atomic Energy and not to the Petitioner. The excavated
material was used for the purposes of leveling the low-lying areas
within the campus of IIT, Bombay.
th
15) She further submits that the Notification dated 11 May
2015 issued by the Revenue and Forest Department under the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 State
Government restricts the levy of any penalty in such cases and
therefore, the concerned authorities were not justified in imposing the
said penalty. Further, there was no documentary or other evidence to
show that the Petitioner had taken the excavated material beyond the
IIT campus. Therefore, as it was within the campus, no permission
from the competent authority was required as such. Accordingly, she
contends that the impugned Order is arbitrary, perverse and fails to
consider the facts and circumstances of the case and material on
record and consequently the order deserves to be set aside.
16) In support of her contentions, she relies upon the following
8/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
Judgments:
i) AIGP Developers Pune Private Limited Vs. State of
1
Maharashtra
Held: 34. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, in conclusion, we
hold the following:
34.1. Earth that is extracted while developing a plot of land and
redeployed on the very same plot of land for land levelling or
any work in the process of development of such plot, does not
partake the character of a “minor mineral”, and therefore does
not require any permission for excavation, and consequently
does not entail payment of any royalty. The petitioner was
therefore fully compliant in respect of the 40,858 brass of earth
extracted from the subject land and re-deployed in the
development work on the very same Subject Land.
34.2. Insofar as earth extracted while developing a plot of land
that is not utilised on the very same plot of land but removed
and transported elsewhere, royalty would be payable under the
extraction rules with applicable permits under the Mining Act.
34.3. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner not only
obtained the requisite permits for extraction and removal of
such earth extracted, but also paid royalty in respect of the
40,000 brass that falls within this category.
34.4. Consequently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
34.5. As a result, the State Government must not withhold the
issuance of a “No Dues Certificate” in respect of the dues claimed
under the impugned order, in the course of processing the
petitioner’s request for denotification of the balance land from
the SEZ status.
(Emphasis supplied)
ii) CEAT Speciality Tyres Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
2
& Ors.
th
The case is that the amended Regulation post 11 May,
Held :
2015 exempted levy of royalty on Minor Minerals extracted
1
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 762
2
2020: BHC-AS:2090-DB
9/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
while developing a plot of land provided the same were utilized
at the same plot of land.
iii) Promoters and Builders Association of Pune Vs. State of
3
Maharashtra.
iv) Paranjape Schemes (Construction) Ltd. Vs. State of
4
Maharashtra.
v) BGR Energy System Ltd. Khaparkheda Vs. Tahsildar
5
Saoner & Ors.
vi) Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. State of
6
Maharashtra & Ors. .
17) In view of the above she submits that the Petition be made
absolute with costs.
18) Ms. Chavan Additional GP for the Respondents referred to
nd
the letter dated 22 December 2025 to submit that the penalty was
levied as the excavation was carried out in one survey number of the
land and transported to the other survey number of the land. It was on
this count alone that the action was taken.
19) When asked as to why no reply has been filed since the past
eight years by the Respondents, she had no reply. On the basis of oral
instructions, she reiterated that the Petitioner had failed to obtain any
3
2015 12 SCC 736
4
2021 SCC OnLine Bom 5059
5
2018 1 Mh.L.J. 332
6
AIR 1993 Bombay 144
10/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
permissions from the concerned authorities before excavating which
was required to be taken. Beyond these contentions, she had no other
arguments to advance.
20) Having heard both the learned counsels and upon perusing
the records, I have arrived at the following conclusions:
21) I find merit in the submissions of Ms. Kapil. The very basis
on which the concerned authorities have passed the impugned order is
contrary to law. The orders passed by the Collector and Additional
Commissioner affirming that order are equally flawed.
nd
22) The Show Cause Notice dated 22 October 2010, issued by
the office of the Divisional office of Mumbai Suburban District was
wholly unsustainable and reflects a complete non-application of mind.
The premise underlying the notice – namely, that the Petitioner
became liable to pay a penalty merely because the excavated material
was transported from one survey number to another – is wholly
untenable.
23) In my view, the Collector ought to have caused the site to be
inspected to ascertain whether the survey numbers formed a part of
the IIT campus or not. Instead, the Collector merely affirmed the order
of the Sub-Divisional Officer, without recording adequate reasons or
applying the law to the facts of the case. Such an order is therefore
wholly unsustainable.
11/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
24) The subsequent order of the Additional Commissioner also
deserves to be set aside on the same grounds. It contains no reasons
have as to why a penalty was required to be imposed upon the
Petitioner when the excavated material was admittedly dumped within
the IIT campus.
25) The invocation of Section 48(7) of MLRC for imposing the
penalty was wholly misconceived. The mere transfer of excavated
material from one survey number to another could not, by itself,
furnish a ground for imposing a penalty. Survey numbers are assigned
primarily for identification and revenue assessment. The concerned
authorities could not have overlooked the material fact that the entire
land had been allotted to and was in possession of IIT.
26) The show cause notice does not identify any statutory
provision requiring prior permission for depositing excavated material
in another survey number forming part of the same campus and held
by the same entity. All three authorities have completely overlooked
the fact that neither the excavation nor the movement of the excavated
material extended beyond the IIT campus. This fundamental defect
vitiates both the notice and the orders founded upon it.
27) The justification furnished in the impugned orders is
contrary to the settled legal position. I find no merit in the
Respondents' submissions. Moreover, the concerned authorities failed
12/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
to file a reply for more than eight years, without offering any
explanation for such failure. The Petitioner has thus been needlessly
drawn into prolonged litigation and subjected to an inequitable and
unwarranted demand.
28) As observed in the case of Tata Telecommunications vs
7
State of Maharashtra , the SDO, Collector, and the Assistant
Commissioner exercising powers vested in them are expected to know
the law and to act in conformity with the binding decisions of the
Supreme Court and High Courts. The present case once again
highlights the necessity for the State Government to obtain proper
legal advice before deciding to defend such actions of this nature.
29) The State, unlike a private litigant, must endeavour to
discourage avoidable litigation, resolve disputes at the threshold and,
wherever possible, prevent disputes from arising. It must act
consistent with its constitutional obligation to uphold the law as
declared by the Courts. Disputes between an authority of the State
Government and the Central Government must be addressed at the
appropriate administrative or legal forum and ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into litigation of the present nature.
30) Defending orders that are contrary to settled law serves
neither the interest of the State nor that of the public. It unnecessarily
7
2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4853
13/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
burdens the Courts and compels the persons affected by such orders to
incur substantial expenditure merely to vindicate their lawful rights.
The absence of any meaningful accountability or deterrent only
encourages the continuation of unjustified proceedings, fostering a
perception that decisions are taken by the State and its authorities for
extraneous reasons, and that such authorities - shielded from personal
accountability - disregards the binding law with impunity.
31) The State is today the single largest litigant, and the public
exchequer bears the costs or burden of every needless contest. The
Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the Government is “no
ordinary party” but must function as a model litigant – meeting just or
honest claims and not defeating lawful entitlements through technical
8
pleas or obstinate resistance: see Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India ,
9
State of Punjab v. Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd. , Madras Port Trust v.
10
Hymanshu International , Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v.
11
Mohan Lal .
32) These decisions underscore that State litigation policy must
be conciliatory rather than combative or adversarial, that wasteful
litigative expenditure is itself a public wrong, and that governments
and statutory authorities cannot raise frivolous or unjust objections,
8
(1974) 3 SCC 554.
9
(1978) 1 SCC 68.
10
(1979) 4 SCC 176.
11
(2010) 1 SCC 512.
14/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
nor behave like private litigants driven by profit or hostility. When
petition is well-founded in law, the State is duty-bound to concede or
resolve it, rather than compelling persons to undergo avoidable
litigation.
33) This Court has recently in Yuvraj Vasantrao Pandhare v.
12
State of Maharashtra (Bom HC) following Dilbagh Rai Jarry (supra)
and Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd. (supra) reiterated that
governmental “indifference” compels citizens to litigate and that the
State enjoys a “dubious distinction of being the largest litigant”,
underscoring the urgent need for a litigation policy anchored in
fairness, settlement and responsibility rather than technical objections
or defences.
34) On a simple analysis of the entire matter, in my view, the
issue could have been resolved by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) at
th
the very outset, when the Petitioner appeared in the inquiry on 25
October 2010. The contractor and the employer (IIT) ought to have
been informed in writing of the requirement, if any, to obtain
permission even for dumping the excavated material within the
campus.
35) Simultaneously, the SDO ought to have obtained legal
advice on whether such the dumping activity within the IIT campus
12
2024:BHC-AS-17812.
15/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
would become unlawful merely because the campus comprised of more
than one survey numbers. Had these elementary steps been taken, the
matter would, in all probability, not have assumed its present
proportion. The situation has arisen solely on account of the needlessly
adversarial approach adopted by the SDO and all concerned
authorities.
36) During the hearing, a query was put to Ms. Chavan
regarding section 29(4) of the Mumbai Minor Minerals Act, 1955,
referred to in the show – cause notice. She sought time to verify the
provision. On a subsequent date, it was confirmed that neither such an
enactment nor such provision exists.
37) What exists is the Bombay Minor Mineral Extraction Rules,
1955. Chapter IV thereof deals with the “Grant of quarrying permits in
respect of loans in which Minerals belongs to Government”. Rule 29
provides for “Grant of quarrying permits”. It does not, however,
contain any sub-rule (4). The impugned show-cause notice was thus
issued by invoking a non-existing enactment and a non-existent
statutory provision.
38) The defect is not merely one of an incorrect citation or an
erroneous description of the source of power. The notice invokes a non-
existent enactment and provision and, more importantly, fails to
disclose the actual statutory foundation of the proposed action or the
16/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
essential facts necessary to attract Section 48(7) of the MLRC. It does
not state how the movement of excavated material between two survey
numbers forming part of the same campus constituted unauthorised
extraction, removal or disposal of a minor mineral. The Petitioner was
therefore not put to notice of the precise statutory and factual case
that it was required to meet. The notice is consequently vitiated by a
fundamental jurisdictional defect and a complete non-application of
mind and accordingly deserves to be set aside.
39) I also find merit in Ms. Kapil’s submission that Section 48
(7) of MLRC is not attracted. It reads as under:
“48 (7). Any person who without lawful authority
extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes
of any mineral from working or derelict mines, quarries,
old dumps, fields, bandhas (whether on the plea of
repairing or construction of bunds of the fields or on any
other plea), nallas , creeks, river-beds, or such other
places wherever situate, the right to which vests in, and
has not been assigned by the State Government, shall,
without prejudice to any other mode of action that may
be taken against him, be liable, [on the order in writing of
the Collector or any revenue officer not below the rank of
Tahsildar authorised by the Collector in this behalf, to
pay penalty of an amount [up to five times] the market
value of the minerals so extracted, removed, collected,
replaced, picked up or disposed of, as the case may be.”
40) On a plain reading of the provision, it is ex facie
inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The excavated material
17/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
was not removed from or deposited outside the IIT campus. The
authorities have neither established that the Petitioner acted without
lawful authority nor demonstrated how the mere movement of the
material between two survey numbers within the same campus
attracted the ingredients of section 48(7).
41) The issue is no longer res integra. In Promoters and
Builders Association of Pune v. State of Maharashtra (supra) , the
Supreme Court held that the mere excavation of ordinary earth does
not, by itself, attract Section 48(7) of the MLRC. The liability depends
upon the use or purpose for which the excavated earth is put. The
authority is required to make a precise determination of its end-use
and cannot impose liability merely because ordinary earth has been
excavated. Where the excavated earth is not commercially exploited
but is redeployed in the course of the very development activity for
which it was excavated, it would not fall within the description of a
minor mineral merely by reason of its excavation.
th
42) The Notification dated 11 May 2015 is also relevant. It
reads thus:
“3. In rule 46 of the Principal Rules:-
(a) for the sub-rule (i), the following sub-rule
shall be substituted, namely :-
(i) The lessee shall pay royalty on minor
minerals removed from the leased area at the rates
specified in Schedule I :
18/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
Provided that, such rates shall be revised
once in every three years :
Provided further that, no royalty shall be
required to be paid on earth which is extracted
while developing a plot of land and utilized on the
very same plot for land levelling or any work in the
process of development of such plot”. ;
(b) in the sub-rule (v), for the words “as
specified by the Government, from time to time”,
the words “at the rate specified in Schedule II”
shall be substituted.”
(Emphasis supplied)
43) The Notification recognises that no royalty is payable on
earth excavated in the course of developing a plot and utilised on that
very plot for levelling or for any work undertaken in the process of its
development. This fortifies the Petitioner’s contention that the
excavation and utilisation of the material within the IIT campus could
not, merely because the campus comprised different survey numbers,
have attracted the impugned demand.
44) In my view the Show Cause Notice was issued without even
reading the Bombay Minor Mineral Extraction Rules, 1955 or Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 or the MLRC.
Regrettably, the Appellate Authorities too have failed to read the same.
This case discloses a serious misuse of statutory power, compounded
by the absence of accountability for the consequences of such
unjustifiable action.
19/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
45) It is equally unfortunate that, even after filing of the
th th
Petition on 24 July 2015 and its admission on 24 August 2015,
neither the concerned authorities nor the State nor its Advocates took
any steps whatsoever or cognizance of the applicable laws or the
th
Notification dated 11 May 2015 or made any meaningful attempt to to
bring an end to this avoidable litigation.
46) When confronted with the aforesaid position, Ms. Chavan
sought time and opportunity to remedy the situation. The request was
granted, and the State was afforded sufficient time to file a detailed
affidavit setting out the measures it proposed to adopt to prevent the
recurrence of such misadventures by the authorities concerned.
Despite sufficient time having been granted, no such affidavit has been
filed.
47) Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the
Petitioner was compelled to pursue this litigation for nearly a decade;
the substantial legal expenditure incurred in engaging attorneys and
counsel; and the need to address the continuing institutional
indifference which, despite repeated judicial exhortations over four
decades, has resulted in such avoidable proceedings of this nature,
costs quantified at 5 lakhs are imposed upon the Respondent No. 1 – ₹
State. The costs are intended to be realistic and compensatory, while
also serving as a deterrent against the recurrence of such conduct.
20/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
48) The amount shall be paid to the Petitioner within four
weeks of the uploading of this Judgment on the website of the Bombay
High Court. It shall be open to the State to identify the officers
responsible for the initiation and continuation of this litigation and to
consider recovering the amount, wholly or partly, from such officers
who were responsible for this litigation over the years.
49) The State must necessarily take appropriate remedial
measures to ensure that all concerned authorities exercising statutory
powers are made aware of the local laws and binding judicial decisions.
The State must frame appropriate guidelines to enable such authorities
to obtain legal advice whenever a genuine doubt arises concerning the
interpretation or application of a statutory provision.
50) The authorities must be sensitized to adopt a fair,
facilitative and non-adversarial approach while dealing with citizens.
Every endeavour must be made to resolve disputes administratively
and to avoid litigations unless it is genuinely unavoidable. There must
also be an effective mechanism for fixing responsibility where the
arbitrary or negligent exercise of statutory power results in
proceedings such as the present one.
51) The Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department of
the State shall, within eight weeks from the date on which this order is
uploaded on the website of the Bombay High Court, file an affidavit
21/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::
WP-183-2015.doc
setting out the measures already adopted or proposed to be adopted to
prevent the recurrence of such litigation.
52) In light of the above, the Writ Petition succeeds and is
allowed in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B) with costs of 5 lakhs ₹
as directed hereinabove.
th
53) List the matter on 24 August 2026 for “Compliance”.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.)
Judgement referred:
1. AIGP Developers Pune Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra,
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 762.
2. Promoters and Builders Association of Pune Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2015 12 SCC 736.
3. Paranjape Schemes (Construction) Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 5059.
4. BGR Energy System Ltd. Khaparkheda Vs. Tahsildar Saoner &
Ors., 2018 1 Mh.L.J. 332
5. CEAT Speciality Tyres Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
2020: BHC-AS:2090-DB
6. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1993 Bombay 144.
7. Tata Telecommunications vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC
OnLine Bom 4853.
8. Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India, (1974) 3 SCC 554..
9. State of Punjab v. Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd., (1978) 1 SCC
68.
10. Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International, (1979) 4 SCC 176.
11. Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal, (2010) 1 SCC
512.
12. Yuvraj Vasantrao Pandhare v. State of Maharashtra, 2024:BHC-
AS-17812.
22/22
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2026 10:12:09 :::