Bhikubai Sahebrao Patil And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra Through District Collector And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:16588
( 1 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 13020 OF 2024
Kavita Dinesh Patil
Age. 35 years, Occ. Agricultural,
R/o. Mehergaon,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule … PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector,
Dhule, Collector office,
Dhule.
2. The Deputy Collector and
Land Acquisition Officer, Dhule
Dist. Dhule.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Medium Irrigation Department,
Dhule, Dist. Dhule. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13021 OF 2024
Trimbak Dhondu Bhamre,
Age. 77 years, Occ. Agricultural,
R/o. Mehergaon,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule … PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector,
Dhule, Collector office,
Dhule.
2. The Deputy Collector and
Land Acquisition Officer, Dhule
Dist. Dhule.

( 2 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
3. The Executive Engineer,
Medium Irrigation Department,
Dhule, Dist. Dhule. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13023 OF 2024
Madhukar Zulal Patil,
Age. 69 years, Occ. Agricultural,
R/o. Mehergaon,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule … PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector,
Dhule, Collector office,
Dhule.
2. The Deputy Collector and
Land Acquisition Officer, Dhule
Dist. Dhule.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Medium Irrigation Department,
Dhule, Dist. Dhule. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13024 OF 2024
Kavita Dinesh Patil
Age. 35 years, Occ. Agricultural,
R/o. Mehergaon,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule … PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector,
Dhule, Collector office,
Dhule.
2. The Deputy Collector and
Land Acquisition Officer, Dhule
Dist. Dhule.

( 3 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
3. The Executive Engineer,
Medium Irrigation Department,
Dhule, Dist. Dhule. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13025 OF 2024
Bhatu Dilip Patil,
Age. 36 years, Occ. Agricultural,
R/o. Mehergaon,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule … PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector,
Dhule, Collector office,
Dhule.
2. The Deputy Collector and
Land Acquisition Officer, Dhule
Dist. Dhule.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Medium Irrigation Department,
Dhule, Dist. Dhule. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13026 OF 2024
1. Smt. Bhikubai Sahebrao Patil,
Age. 68 years, Occ. Agricultural,
2. Rajjubai Zulal Patil (Bhamre),
Age. 65 years, Occu. Agricultural,
Both R/o. Mehergaon,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule … PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector,

( 4 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
Dhule, Collector office,
Dhule.
2. The Deputy Collector and
Land Acquisition Officer, Dhule
Dist. Dhule.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Medium Irrigation Department,
Dhule, Dist. Dhule. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13027 OF 2024
Shri. Anil Prakash Bhamre,
Age. 46 years, Occ. Agricultural,
R/o. Mehergaon,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule … PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector,
Dhule, Collector office,
Dhule.
2. The Deputy Collector and
Land Acquisition Officer, Dhule
Dist. Dhule.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Medium Irrigation Department,
Dhule, Dist. Dhule. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13033 OF 2024
Ravindra Raghunath Patil (Bhamre),
Age. 58 years, Occ. Agricultural,
R/o. Mehergaon,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule … PETITIONER
VERSUS

( 5 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector,
Dhule, Collector office,
Dhule.
2. The Deputy Collector and
Land Acquisition Officer, Dhule
Dist. Dhule.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Medium Irrigation Department,
Dhule, Dist. Dhule. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13048 OF 2024
Shri. Anil Prakash Bhamre,
Age. 46 years, Occ. Agricultural,
R/o. Mehergaon,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule … PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector,
Dhule, Collector office,
Dhule.
2. The Deputy Collector and
Land Acquisition Officer, Dhule
Dist. Dhule.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Medium Irrigation Department,
Dhule, Dist. Dhule. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13049 OF 2024
Anna Ramchandra Hatgir,
Age. 51 years, Occ. Agricultural,
R/o. Mehergaon,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule … PETITIONER

( 6 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector,
Dhule, Collector office,
Dhule.
2. The Deputy Collector and
Land Acquisition Officer, Dhule
Dist. Dhule.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Medium Irrigation Department,
Dhule, Dist. Dhule. … RESPONDENTS
…
Mr. Prathamesh M. Borde h/f. Mr. Shailesh S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the
Petitioner/s in all matters
Mrs. M. L. Sangit, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State in all matters
…
CORAM
: AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE
: 01.04.2026
JUDGMENT :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard for final disposal by consent of Mr. Prathamesh M. Borde
h/f. Mr. Shailesh S. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mrs. M. L. Sangit, learned AGP for the respondent – authorities. Petitioners’
common grievance is that their application for enhancement u/s 64 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act
of 2013”) is refused to be accepted by the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition
(General), Dhule on account of delay. All the Petitioners submit that the
Authority ought to have mindfully applied the discretion provided in the last

( 7 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
proviso to the Section 64 of the Act of 2013.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners’ lands in respective matters
have been acquired for the “Lower Panzara (Akkalpada) Medium Project”, and
that awards have already been declared by the authorities as per the following
particulars :

( 8 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was incumbent
upon the petitioners to file reference proceedings within six weeks from the
date of receipt of notice. However, owing to the restrictions imposed during
the COVID-19 pandemic, the lack of legal knowledge and poor financial
condition, the petitioners could not file the references within time. It is
submitted that after receipt of notices, some time is consumed in obtaining
necessary documents including certified copies of the awards. Thereafter, they
filed reference proceedings along with an application for condonation of delay
under Section 64(2) of the the Act of 2013. The delay is hardly of 17 days.
The said applications came to be opposed by the respondent–authorities.
5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned orders dated
19.03.2024 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General),
Dhule, rejected the petitioners’ applications. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of
delay. It is further submitted that the petitioners are farmers and have fairly
disclosed the reasons which prevented them from filing the proceedings within
the prescribed period. It is urged that the petitioners have a legitimate claim
for enhancement of compensation and their rights deserve protection under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, particularly when similarly situated
landowners are being granted such relief. It is further submitted that the
petitioners are willing to waive interest for the delayed period as may be
directed by this Court.
6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relies upon
the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent - authorities and
submits that no error has been committed by the authorities while passing the

( 9 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
impugned orders in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. She further
submits that paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-reply justifies the rejection of the
applications. The learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposes
the reasons advanced by the petitioner/s for condonation of delay contending
that the grounds are omnibus in nature and do not constitute sufficient cause.
Its an admitted fact that the Deputy Collector Land Acquisition (General),
Dhule has considered the date of receipt of notice issued in format u/s 23 of
the Act of 2013 for the purpose of counting limitation u/s 64 of the Act of
2013.
7. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that
the powers of the District Collector u/s 64 of the Act of 2013 are exercised by
the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Dhule.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Assistant Government Pleader at length.
9. Petitioners’ claim is governed by the Right to Fair Compensation
Act 2013. Section 64 of the Act of 2013 reads thus:
64.
(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award
may, by written application to the Collector, require that
the matter be referred by the Collector for the
determination of the Authority, as the case may be,
whether his objection be to the measurement of the land,
the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is
payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement

( 10 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the
compensation among the persons interested:
Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty
days from the date of receipt of application, make a
reference to the appropriate Authority:
Provided further that where the Collector fails to make
such reference within the period so specified, the applicant
may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting
it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within
a period of thirty days.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which
objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such
application shall be made- (a) if the person making it was
present or represented before the Collector at the time
when he made his award, within six weeks from the date
of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the
notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six
months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever
period shall first expire:
Provided further that the Collector may entertain an
application after the expiry of the said period, within a
further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was
sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified
in the first proviso.

( 11 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
10. Mr. Prathamesh M. Borde, learned Counsel fairly submits that the
Petitioners seek benefit of the last proviso to the Section 64 of the 2013 Act.
He would submit that the reason submitted by the Petitioners for failing to file
the reference within the time stipulated in the provision is justifiable. The last
proviso empowers the Collector to entertain a Reference Application though
filed by a delay, but if filed within a period of one year from the date of cause
of action for filing the reference application.
11. In the cases at hand, its not disputed that the Reference
Applications are not filed within limitation as contemplated in Section 64 of
the 2013 Act. Petitioners fairly accept the receipt of notice under Section 23 of
the 2013 Act. It is an undisputed fact that the applications were filed within
one year from the date of receipt of notice. It is very little delay of 17 to 18
days.
12. Section 23 of the 2013 Act reads thus:
23. Enquiry and land acquisition award by Collector - On
the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry
has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire
into the objections (if any) which any person interested has
stated pursuant to a notice given under section 21, to the
measurements made under section 20, and into the value
of the land at the date of the publication of the notification,
and into the respective interests of the person claiming the
compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement, shall
make an award under his hand of -
(b) the true area of the land;

( 12 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
(b) the compensation as determined under section 27
along with Rehabilitation and Resettlement award as
determined under section 31 and which in his opinion
should be allowed for the land; and
(c) the apportionment of the said compensation among all
the persons known or believed to be interested in the land,
or whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether
or not they have respectively appeared before him.
State Amendments
[Maharashtra] -In its application to the State of
Maharashtra, after S. 23, the following section shall be
inserted, namely :-
"23-A. Award of Collector without enquiry in case of
agreement of interested persons. -(1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in section 23, if at any stage of the
proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons
interested in the land who appeared before him have
agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the
award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules
made by the State Government, he may, without making
further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of
such agreement.
(2) The determination of compensation for any land under
sub-section (1) shall not in any way affect the
determination of compensation in respect of other lands in

( 13 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other
provisions of this Act.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration
Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-
section (1) shall be liable to registration under that Act"-
Maharashtra Act 37 of 2018, S. 4 (w.e.f. 26-4-2018).
13. The Petitioners are served with a notice under Section 23 of the
Act. As such, its clear that Petitioners are not covered by Section 64 (2) (a) of
the Act. Petitioner/s’ case is that only after receiving notice under Section 23
of the Act the Petitioners learnt about the Award. Even the Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition has also considered the date of service of notice u/s 23 of the
Act. May it be, its not disputed that the application u/s 64 with applications
for delay condonation are filed at-least within one year from the date of
limitation after receipt of notice under Section 23 of the Act which has given
cause of action to the Petitioners.
The statute, as observed supra empowers the Collector to
condone the delay if reasons tendered by party are found satisfactory.
14. ‘Satisfaction on sufficient cause’ is a relative concept, and hence it
is left to the discretion of the Collector calling upon to apply his/her reasoning
cautiously and mindfully. The cases of enhancement in land acquisition
compensation, in my considered view, must not be treated by the Government
Authorities as an adversary litigation. Farmers loose their sole source of
earning in the compulsory land acquisition. The Authorities go by the rules
and accordingly the awards are passed. The statutory provision for
enhancement is drafted bearing in mind that there could be cases and

( 14 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
eventualities where adequate and appropriate compensation might be missed
to be awarded. That’s why the enhancement provision is a form of benevolent
legislation.
15. The rider of limitation is to avoid cooked claims and unnecessary
burden on the state exchequer that may fall due to interest part of the
enhancement. The claimant(s) falling deficit to lodge enhancement case
within stipulated time has to show the natural and justifiable cause resulting
into delay. Not everything can be explained or examined merely putting finger
on the rules. Delay and reasons behind it must be examined pragmatically on
the test of actual circumstances and ground reality. Hence cautiously the last
Proviso to Section 64 of the Act is incorporated by the Legislature thereby
leaving a room of one year for consideration at the end of the Collector. The
District Collector is such an authority who is well aware and apprised of the
general reasons, general conditions of the farmers in his district, the local
factors in his district, special/distinguishing eventualities during the concerned
period etc. which may cause delay in filing the enhancement claims by the
farmers. The Collector is expected to consider mindfully the reasons
rendered/even not rendered by the farmers which cause/may cause delay in
filing enhancement in compensation. The Collector, although is a
representative of the State, in true sense is a ‘guardian’ of interest of the
farmers in his district. It has to be seen that only due to technicality of a
justifiable delay, deserving claimant must not suffer deprivation of equal right
to enhancement. Hence, the delay condonation applications need to be
adjudicated giving mindful thought, not on mechanical reasoning.

( 15 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
16. In the cases at hand, apparently the Petitioners hail from Adiwasi
region of the State. The period during which Petitioners missed the limitation
was of Covid-19 pandemic and the restraints imposed by the Government.
Even after lifting the riders by the State authorities post Covid-19, its strong
after-burns were lasting for a long time. The people were not only financially
affected, but even their day-to-day activities, decision making process,
communication etc. everything was affected. Its a matter of judicial note that a
farmer may not straightway go and file his Reference application to the
District Collector. He/she approaches an advocate of choice and the further
processes are brought in motion. The Petitioners have explained satisfactorily
that once they approached their advocate, the things were put in service and
the applications were filed, though by a little delay.
17. Its pertinent to note that apparently the delay is not an inordinate
delay. Although the Petitioners missed to lodge the references within the initial
limitation, still were filed within One year as per the Proviso (supra). The only
thing is that the Collector ought to have pragmatically considered the delay
condonation applications, which in my opinion, is not done.
18. A beneficial reference can be made to the view expressed by the
Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar and ors. Vs. State of
Haryana with connected cases (2025 INSC 550). The Honorable Supreme
Court, while dealing with the delay caused by the claimants seeking
enhancement in land acquisition references observed thus :
“11. In all judgments referred supra, the common thread that
can be observed is that delay is not a reason to deny the land
losers their compensation, which is just, fair and reasonable

( 16 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
for the land they have lost.
12. This Court has noticed that in Delhi Air Tech Services Pvt.
Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Anr. ( 2022 SCC Online SC1408) , with
reference to Coffee Board, Karnataka, Bangalore v.
Commission of Commercial Tax, Karnataka (1988) 3 SCC
263 ) that while the State has the power of eminent domain,
the owner of a land can only be divested thereof in accordance
with the procedure established by law after appropriately
compensating them. This is in view of Article 300 A and 31A of
the Constitution of India.
13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered
view that the delay ought to have been condoned, since the
position that the land loser had, in fact, asked for the appeal to
be filed but it was not, for no fault of his, is an uncontroverted
position of fact. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The
impugned judgment and orders are set aside and the matters
are remanded to the High Court for consideration afresh, on
all aspects, save and except delay. Such consideration is to be
made, uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove.
However, for the delayed period that is being condoned, the
appellant shall not be entitled to any interest. The Registry is
requested to transmit a copy of this order to the learned
Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, for
necessary follow up action. Because the Award from which the
appeals arise is of the year 2005, the High Court is requested
make an endeavour to decide the matters expeditiously.

( 17 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
19. For the reasons recorded above, I am of the considered view that on the
principle of equity and in the interest of justice, the Petitioners must get an
opportunity to make out a case on merits for enhancement. A small and
justifiable delay must not defeat the substantive right. Interest of the State
from loss of public exchequer also needs to be protected, which can be done
by putting some restraint on the interest over compensation.
20. Hence, I pass following order.
O R D E R
A. The Writ Petitions are allowed.
B. Impugned order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the
Respondent No. 2 in Delay Applications, are quashed and set
aside. The delays caused in filing the References u/s 64 of the
2013 Act stand condoned.
C. The Petitioners shall appear before the Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition (General), Dhule on 27-04-2026 or within a
week thereafter alongwith the Reference Applications, relevant
documents and copy of this order.
D. Thereafter the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition
(General), Dhule shall process Petitioner/s’ Reference
Applications in accordance with law.

( 18 ) 951 WP 13020 of 2024+.odt
E. In the event of enhancement of compensation, the
Petitioners shall not be entitled for any interest from the last date
of limitation pursuant to notice under Section 23 of the 2013 Act
till the date of appearance before the Authority for re-
presentation of their claim.
F. Rule made absolute in above terms.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW