Late Mahadev Dhondiba Marne Thr. Lrs Dilip Mahadev Marne Thr. Poa vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Governement Pleader And Ors

2026:BHC-AS:20509-DB
sbw ASWP-16535-2025(J).doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16535 OF 2025
Late Mahadev Dhondiba Marne ]
Through Legal Heirs ]
Shri Dilip Mahadev Marne ]
Age-62 Yrs, Occ-Agri And Business ]
R/At-623/24, Shukrawar Peth, Sanatan ]
Apartment, Sadanika No.23, 749, ]
Shivaji Road, Pune 411002 ]
Through Power of Attorney Holder ]
Shri Dhanesh Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh ]
Age: 34 years, Occ:Agri and Business ]
R/at: Dawdi, Taluka Khed, District-Pune. ]
… Petitioner
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra ]
Through Government Pleader ]
A.S.High Court, (Mumbai). ]
2. The Collector, Pune. ]
3. The District Re-settlement Officer ]
Pune, Collector Compound, Pune. ]
4. The Additional Collector, Pune. ]
5. The Divisional Commissioner ]
Pune Division, Pune. ]
6. Desk Officer ]
Government of Maharashtra ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ]
7. Shri Prasad Ghenand ]
Age-Adult, Occ-Agri/Social Worker ]
R/At-Markal, Tal-Khed ]
Dist-Pune. ] … Respondents
Digitally signed
by SANDHYA
BHAGU
WADHWA
Date:
2026.04.29
19:54:45
+0530
SANDHYA
1/9
BHAGU
WADHWA
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2026 20:31:38 :::

sbw ASWP-16535-2025(J).doc

______________________________________
Mr. Sumit Khaire, for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl.GP a/w Mr. A.R. Deolekar, AGP, for the State.
________________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 24 April, 2026.
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 29 April, 2026.
Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the Order dated
th
4 November, 2025 passed by Respondent No.6 namely the Desk Officer.
Brief facts
2) The Petitioner is a Project Affected Person (PAP). The Petitioner's
land namely Gat No.229, 239, 318, 331 admeasuring 00H 6R, 00H 5R and
00H 3R respectively, totaling to 19R, located at Lavharde, Taluka Mulshi,
District Pune, was acquired for construction of Temghar Dam Project. The
th
acquisition was done pursuant to an Award dated 13 December, 1999
passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO).
3) Being a project affected person, the Petitioner is entitled to
allotment of an alternate land. In lieu of the allotment of alternate land the
SLAO has deducted an amount of 65% from the compensation due to the
Petitioner and deposited it in the Treasury. The Petitioner preferred an
th
application for allotment of the alternate land on 25 November, 2019.
2/9
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2026 20:31:38 :::

sbw ASWP-16535-2025(J).doc

4) In view of the non- allotment of the land, the Petitioner made an
th
application on 6 February, 2022, demanding land bearing Gat No.178/2/1
admeasuring 80R, situated at Village Apti, Taluka Khed, District Pune. Since
th
he was not allotted the land as per the application dated 6 February, 2022,
th
he filed two other applications one on 25 November, 2023 seeking
allotment of land bearing Gat No.2035/2 admeasuring 40R situated at
Pimpalgaon Tarfe, Taluka Khed, District Pune and another application dated
th
26 April, 2024 for Gat No.358/2 admeasuring 80R situated at
Burunjawadi, Taluka Khed, District Pune. The said applications were
th
allowed by an Order dated 6 March, 2024.
5) Upon passing of the Order, Shri Balasaheb Bhausaheb Wable, the
owner of land bearing Gat No.358/2 filed an application before the
Additional Collector, Pune, seeking cancellation of allotment of land to the
th
Petitioner on 20 August, 2024 on the ground that, his land bearing Gat No.
358/2 admeasuring 81R was acquired for rehabilitation. He further
contended that, the name of the Collector was recorded in the 7/12 extract
but the land is acquired from the western side. He contended that, on the
western side of his house, a well and a bore well were situated and he has
th

been cultivating the land. He referred to an application made on 29
February, 2024 before the Divisional Commissioner for correction of map
th
and an application to the Additional Collector, Pune on 20 August 2024,
for cancellation of the allotment to the Petitioner. Mr. Wable contended
3/9
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2026 20:31:38 :::

sbw ASWP-16535-2025(J).doc

that, the Petitioner had misled the Government Officer to allot him the land
admeasuring 80R and consequently requested for cancellation of the
th
allotment Order dated 6 March, 2024.
th
6) The Additional Collector conducted a hearing on 11 February
2025 and after hearing both the Petitioner as well as Mr. Wable at length
th
passed an Order dated 12 February, 2025. By the said Order, the direction
for acquisition of land bearing Gat No.358/2 was not changed since
according to him the land was already allotted to the Petitioner and the
possession handed over, consequently, in his view the said issue was beyond
his jurisdiction. He accordingly directed the Applicant Mr. Wable to prefer
an application before the appropriate Authority.
7) Accordingly, Mr. Wable filed an application before the Ministry of
th
Relief and Rehabilitation of Maharashtra State on 29 March, 2025. The
rd
Minister issued letter dated 3 June, 2025 directing the Collector, Pune to
submit a report.
8) Mr. Wable thereafter also filed an application before the Revenue
th
Minister on 9 June, 2025 and upon considering it, an Order was passed on
the same date directing the said application be disposed off immediately.
9) In addition to Mr. Wable, one Prasad Ghenand filed an application
before the Deputy Secretary of the Relief and Rehabilitation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai, alleging that, there were several illegalities in the
allotment of lands and sought a report in respect thereof from the
4/9
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2026 20:31:38 :::

sbw ASWP-16535-2025(J).doc

Additional Collector, Pune.
th
10) The Additional Collector, Pune submitted a report on 10
September, 2025. The report stated that, the Petitioner was allotted land
admeasuring 80R as per the number of family members. But in the record
being the 8A extract, submitted by the Petitioner, revealed that it was not
before the cut off date, therefore, the area of acquired land and the
remainder could not be verified. The report also revealed that, although
thirteen (13) members were shown in the family of the Petitioner, only the
Petitioner had filed his consent letter. No evidence of his thirteen family
members was produced. Upon receiving the said report, the Respondent
th
No.6 passed an Order dated 4 November 2025, directing the Collector to
cancel the allotment of land bearing Gat No.2035/2 as well as Gat
No.358/2.
11) According to the Petitioner, an area admeasuring 19R was
acquired from him for construction of the Dam and therefore he was
entitled to 80R land. Considering the members in his family, he claimed
th
entitlement to 80R land. It is therefore submitted that, the Order dated 6
March, 2024 was in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Order dated
th
4 November, 2025 passed by Respondent No.6 that was passed without
hearing the Petitioner, was incorrect. The present Petition was filed being
th
aggrieved by the said Order dated 4 November, 2025, passed by
Respondent No.6.
5/9
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2026 20:31:38 :::

sbw ASWP-16535-2025(J).doc

12) Mr. Sumit Khaire, learned Advocate for the Petitioner narrated the
afore-stated facts and submitted that, the Order passed by Respondent No.6
th
dated 4 November, 2025 deserves to be set aside as the principles of
natural justice were not followed, since the Petitioners were not heard and
given an opportunity to present their case.
13) Per contra , Mr. Patel, learned Additional GP for the State, invited
th
our attention to the Affidavit of Dr. Swapnil Bharat More dated 11
February, 2026. Inviting our attention to Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, he
submitted that, alternate land allotment had been made without verifying
not only the claim regarding the thirteen family members of the Petitioner
but also without verifying the total land holding.
14) He further drew our attention to Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 and
th
submitted that the letter dated 4 November, 2025, was only a direction
issued to the District Collector, Pune and according to him an action taken
thereafter by the District Collector would constitute a final Order.
th
According to him, the present letter dated 4 November, 2025 was only a
part of the official proceedings and a direction. He further submitted that,
the Petitioner had obtained alternate land by misleading the concerned
officers, by furnishing false information, which resulted in grant of land that
was in excess of Petitioner’s entitlement. He further submitted that,
notwithstanding the cancellation, upon a fresh application the Petitioner
would be allotted alternate land as per his eligibility after scrutinizing the
6/9
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2026 20:31:38 :::

sbw ASWP-16535-2025(J).doc

documents.
15) Relying on the decision of this Court in Tukaram, Dhondi Sutar
v/s. Nana Bhau Tibile & Ors. in Civil Revision Application No.533 of 2017
reported in AIR OnLine 2018 Bom 11 , he submitted that, the State
Government has powers of superintendence, direction and control over the
actions of the Collector and is empowered to issue appropriate directions as
may be necessary. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v/s. V. Jagannath reported in
1994 AIR 835 to submit that, a judgment, decree or an order obtained by
playing a fraud on the Court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. In
view of the above, he submitted that, the Petition be dismissed with
exemplary costs.
16) We have heard both Mr. Sumit Khaire as well as Mr. Patel and
have perused the record carefully.
17) We found merit in the submission of Mr. Patel and accordingly
posed a question to Mr. Khaire, as to whether his client would be open to
withdrawing the present Petition with liberty to file an appropriate
application applying for land as per their eligibility and entitlement. In
response, Mr. Khaire stood steadfast in his assertions and declined to
reapply for alternate land as per his eligibility. He insisted that, allotment of
th
lands as per the Order dated 6 March, 2024 deserved to be upheld and the
subsequent directions of cancellation of allotment deserved to be set aside.
7/9
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2026 20:31:38 :::

sbw ASWP-16535-2025(J).doc

18) In our view, the assertion of Mr. Khaire is entirely unacceptable.
Dr. More’s Affidavit categorically admits that, the land allotment was made
without verifying the records particularly the number of members in the
Petitioner’s family on the cut off date and consequently the Petitioner’s
entitlement considering his assertion about his having thirteen family
members.
19) In view of the above, we do not find any justification in setting
th
aside the letter dated 4 November, 2025 whereby the allotment of land to
the Petitioner was cancelled.
20) We direct the Secretary of the Relief and Rehabilitation
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, to undertake an investigation to look
into the irregularities and illegal allotments of land in respect of the
Temghar Dam Project.
21) We also direct the Secretary of Relief and Rehabilitation
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, to place on record the actions taken
against the concerned Officials who were entrusted with the task of
allotment of alternate lands to the PAPS.
22) Let the compliance report be filed through an Affidavit by the
Secretary of the Relief and Rehabilitation Department, Mantralaya,
nd
Mumbai, on or before 2 November, 2026.
23) The Petition is dismissed.
24) It is clarified that, the Petitioner would nevertheless be entitled to
8/9
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2026 20:31:38 :::

sbw ASWP-16535-2025(J).doc

make a fresh application along with all material documents to prove his
eligibility and entitlement to the alternate land. Upon such application
being made, the concerned Authority shall grant him the alternate land as
per his eligibility and in accordance with law.
25) We also direct the concerned Authority to take appropriate
actions against the Petitioner for having misled the office by presenting
incorrect documents and misleading the Authority. Equally necessary action
deserves to be taken against the concerned Officials who failed to verify the
Petitioner’s documents before allotting the alternate lands.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
26) At this stage, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted
th
that, there is an ad-interim relief in favour of the Petitioner since 16
December, 2025 be continued for a period of four weeks from today.
27) In view thereof and for the reasons stated in the Petition, the
said request is rejected.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
9/9
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2026 20:31:38 :::