Roshan Shrikant Tandel vs Commissioner-Konkan Div. And Ors.
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-AS:21216-DB
WP1389_20.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1389 OF 2020
Roshan Shrikant Tandel … Petitioner
Vs.
Commissioner-Konkan Division and others … Respondents
Mr. Sachin Punde a/w. Ms. Deepa Punde for Petitioner.
Ms. P. M. J. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4.
Mr. Naushad Engineer a/w. Mr. Soham Bhalerao and Mr. Harshit Tyagi i/b. DSK
Legal for Respondent No.3-CIDCO.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
Reserved on : APRIL 06, 2026
Pronounced on: MAY 05, 2026
JUDGEMENT : ( Per Justice Manish Pitale )
. The petitioner in this petition contends that in the light of an
admitted position on facts that the subject land located in Survey
No.106/6 was never acquired and compensation was not paid, the
respondents need to undertake steps for acquisition of the said land
under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (Act of 2013). It is the case of the petitioner that even though
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A.
Act) and declaration under Section 6 thereof were issued in the context
of the said land, for acquisition along with other pieces of land, award
regarding the same was never declared; Compensation was not
determined and possession was also not taken as per law. Therefore, the
proceedings had clearly lapsed, requiring appropriate proceedings to be
undertaken for acquisition in accordance with law.
1/12
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 15:56:14 :::
WP1389_20.doc
2. The relevant sequence of events leading to filing of the present
petition is that, on 24.09.1986, a notification was issued under Section 4
of the L.A. Act, notifying several pieces of land in Village Karave,
Taluka and District Thane, for the public purpose of proposed ‘New
Town’ to be known as ‘Navi Mumbai’. The subject land was covered
under the said notification. On 14.09.1987, declaration under Section 6
of the L.A. Act was issued, which referred to the subject land also. On
12.08.1988, notices were issued under Section 9 of the L.A. Act,
notifying claims for compensation. The notice was served upon the
mother of the petitioner. During the said period, the petitioner was a
minor. The statement of the petitioner’s mother was recorded on a
printed form. Such statements were obtained from all the members of
the family of the petitioner, whose lands were intended to be acquired.
3. On 31.08.1989, award was declared under Section 11 of the L.A.
Act. In the award, there was no mention of the subject property in the
valuation column and compensation for the said land was also not
determined. In October 1989, notices under Section 12(2) of the L.A.
Act were issued for receiving compensation. On 09.07.1990, possession
receipt was executed. The documents show that while possession of the
adjoining lands was taken, possession of the subject land was not taken
by the respondent authorities.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that his mother was an illiterate
person and when he attained majority and pursued the matter,
information was obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Such information revealed that beyond declaration under Section 6 of
the L.A. Act, no action was taken in respect of the subject land situated
in Survey No.106/6 and that, it was never made part of the aforesaid
award dated 31.08.1989. The petitioner also approached the office of the
City and Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra (CIDCO)
2/12
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 15:56:14 :::
WP1389_20.doc
and it was confirmed that neither an award was declared in respect of the
subject land nor any compensation was determined or paid. It is in this
backdrop that the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging
the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act and the declaration
under Section 6 thereof and also for a direction to the respondents to
treat the said land as not having been acquired. The petitioner further
claims the aforesaid direction to the respondents for acquiring the land
under the Act of 2013.
5. Upon notice being issued in the writ petition, the respondent State
authorities as well as the respondent CIDCO filed their reply affidavits.
Although it was conceded that the documents on record did not show
that the award determined compensation for the subject land and that,
the possession receipt also did not cover the subject land, the reliefs
claimed in the writ petition ought not to be granted for various reasons,
including delay and laches.
6. Mr. Sachin Punde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the documents on record, as also the facts conceded on
behalf of the respondent State authorities and the respondent CIDCO
clearly made out a case in favour of the petitioner. It was submitted that
once the petitioner had established that there was no acquisition of the
subject piece of land in Survey No.106/6, although adjoining pieces of
land were acquired and compensation was paid, the writ petition
deserved to be allowed and the respondents ought to take steps in
accordance with law for acquisition of the subject land and for payment
of compensation. It was submitted that since the respondent CIDCO
claimed that it had already demarcated plots on the subject land, the
process of acquisition ought to be undertaken in accordance with law.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India.
3/12
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 15:56:14 :::
WP1389_20.doc
7. On the aspect of delay and laches, attention of this Court was
invited to judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of UP
and others Vs. Manohar , (2005) 2 SCC 126 ; Sukh Dutt Ratra and
another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022) 7 SCC 508
and Tukaram Kana Joshi and others Vs. Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation and others , (2013) 1 SCC 353 . It was
submitted that in the present case, the respondents should not be
permitted to take the shelter of the argument of delay land laches to
deprive the petitioner of his rightful claim. Reliance was placed on
judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal
Corporation Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah , to submit that
(2024) 10 SCC 533
the Supreme Court had elaborated the position of law in respect of
Article 300-A of the Constitution. In that regard, reliance was also
placed on judgement of this Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar
Damodarprasad Bhadani and others Vs. Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and others ,
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 35 . On the basis of the said position of law, it
was submitted that the writ petition deserved to be allowed.
8. Mr. Naushad Engineer, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent CIDCO submitted that the petitioner cannot be granted relief
after decades as the award was declared as far back as on 31.08.1989. It
was submitted that the writ petition was hit by delay and laches. A party
like the petitioner herein cannot be permitted to take recourse to Section
24(2) of the Act of 2013 to claim lapsing of acquisition. Reliance was
placed on judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir and
others Vs. Union of India and another , (2018) 3 SCC 588 , to contend
that such abuse of the process of law wherein parties approach the Court
after decades, has to be prevented and that stale claims ought not to be
allowed.
4/12
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 15:56:14 :::
WP1389_20.doc
9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent CIDCO
submitted that in the present case, the award, at worst, suffered from a
computational error and that, it can be rectified by calculating
compensation under the provisions of the L.A. Act. For this proposition,
reliance was placed on order of this Court in the case of Tukaram Balya
Patil and another Vs. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and others
(order dated 18.09.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.6470 of 2018 ).
Reliance was also placed on judgement of this Court in the case of
Sumitra Shridhar Khane Vs. Deputy Collector and others , 2025 SCC
OnLine Bom 1747 , to contend that the compensation payable for the
subject land could be calculated under the provisions of the L.A. Act and
that the petitioner cannot claim relief under the Act of 2013.
10. It was emphasized that with passage of time, the respondent
CIDCO had demarcated plots on the subject land. If the contentions
raised on behalf of the petitioner are accepted, the subject land will have
to be returned back, which cannot be contemplated. In this situation, the
respondent CIDCO had even offered that interest @15% could be paid
on the amount that would be calculated under the L.A. Act, further lease
rent for the period @8% p.a. could be paid and that additionally
developed land could be made available to the petitioner as per the
scheme of the respondent CIDCO. It was submitted that the petitioner
was not agreeable to such an offer, and therefore, the writ petition ought
to be dismissed.
11. Ms. Deshpande, learned AGP appearing for the respondent State
authorities i.e. respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 supported the contentions
raised on behalf of the respondent CIDCO and contended that the writ
petition can be disposed of by directing compensation to be calculated
under the provisions of the L.A. Act with other statutory benefits being
granted to the petitioner.
5/12
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 15:56:14 :::
WP1389_20.doc
12. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of the
documents on record. The notification dated 24.09.1986 issued under
Section 4 of the L.A. Act does show that the subject land in Survey
No.106/6 along with other adjoining pieces of land, was proposed for
acquisition. The declaration dated 14.09.1987 issued under Section 6 of
the L.A. Act also shows the subject land. But, the award dated
31.08.1989 shows that while recording the area notified for acquisition,
there is reference to the subject land admeasuring 280 sq.mtrs. in Survey
No.106/6 against the name of the petitioner's mother, but in the body of
the award computing the quantum of compensation, the subject land
located in Survey No.106/6 is not mentioned. In the column pertaining
to 'details of valuation', while survey numbers with areas under
acquisition pertaining to adjoining pieces of land belonging to family
members of the petitioner are mentioned, the subject land in Survey
No.106/6 is conspicuous by its absence. It is also crucial to note that the
kabjepavti , being the document signifying taking over of possession,
also does not make any reference to the subject land in Survey No.106/6.
The kabjepavti only shows pieces of land located in other survey
numbers along with their respective areas having been taken over by the
competent authority.
13. The reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4
i.e. State authorities concedes as follows:-
“5. I say and submit that an Award under section 11 of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 bearing case no. 143, Award no.
282 of Rs. 1,57,624/- for area admeasuring 8670 sq.mtrs. was
declared on 31/08/1989 in the name of Shri. Laxmibai
Tukaram Patil and 5 others with respect to lands situated at
Karave, Taluka-Dist. Thane by Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Metro Centre 3, Thane. The lands S.No. 11/4, 105/3,
109/9, 106/3, 106/4, 106/6, 107/7, 107/7, 108/2, 113/3, 113/9
situated at Karave, Taluka-Dist. Thane are mentioned on page
no. 1 of this Award. However, the land bearing S.No. 106/6
admeasuring 280 sq.mtr. is not mentioned on page no. 4 of the
Award. I further submit that 280 sq. mtr. area of s.no. 106/6 is
6/12
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 15:56:14 :::
WP1389_20.doc
not taken into consideration while calculating the
compensation amount in the said Award. Hereto marked and
annexed as Exhibit "3" is a copy of Award bearing case NO.
143 Award no. 282 dt. 31/08/1989.
6. I say and submit that after declaration of Award,
Kabjepavti dtd. 09/07/1990 was made with respect to the said
Award. However, the land bearing S.No. 106/6 admeasuring
280 sq.mtr. is not mentioned in the said Kabjepavti. The
possession of remaining lands was handed over to the
representative of CIDCO i.e. Respondent no.3 on 09/07/1990.
Hereto marked and annexed as Exhibit "4" is a copy of
Kabjepavti dtd. 09/07/1990.”
14. The affidavit in reply of respondent No.3 CIDCO also concedes
as follows:-
“6. Insofar as CIDCO is concerned, as per the records
available with CIDCO, in the Award No.282 Unit case no.143
dated Nil, the writ land is mentioned on page no.1 of this
Award. So also, the writ land does not find place in the
possession receipt dated 09.07.1990.”
15. The aforementioned admitted position on facts, makes it
abundantly clear that insofar as the subject land admeasuring 280 mtrs.
located in Survey No.106/6 is concerned, there is no land acquisition
award, monetary compensation is not computed and there is nothing to
show that possession of the subject land was taken in accordance with
law.
16. Section 11A of the L.A. Act provides that the land acquisition
award has to be declared within two years from the date of publication
of declaration under Section 6 thereof and in case of failure to do so, the
entire proceedings for acquisition lapse. In the present case, as regards
the subject land, although there was indeed a declaration under Section 6
of the L.A. Act, no award was declared in respect of the same at all,
much less within two years of such declaration. Thus, by operation of
law i.e. Section 11A of the L.A. Act, the acquisition pertaining to the
subject land itself lapsed. The declaration under Section 6 of the L.A.
7/12
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 15:56:14 :::
WP1389_20.doc
Act was dated 14.09.1987 and therefore, on 13.09.1989, in the absence
of the award being made in respect of the subject land, the acquisition
itself lapsed by operation of law. In the facts of the present case, Section
24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not come into the picture, because no
award was passed in respect of the subject land under the L.A. Act.
17. Once this conclusion is reached on the basis of admitted position
on facts, the petitioner is clearly entitled to relief. We are unable to agree
that the present case can be said to be a case of 'computational error' as
sought to be projected on behalf of the respondent CIDCO. Reliance
placed on behalf of the respondent CIDCO on the order of this Court in
the case of Tukaram Balya Patil and another Vs. Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition and others ( supra ) is misplaced. In the said case, on
facts, this Court found that the award in the said case clearly showed that
entire 52 Gunthas 04 R was acquired by the State and possession thereof
was taken. But, the award referred to 1 Acre 11 Gunthas and 12 R,
which while converting, was erroneously recorded as 32 Gunthas 40 R
instead of 52 Gunthas and 04 R. It is in such facts that this Court treated
the said case as a case of computational error, further directing the
authorities to calculate the remaining compensation under the L.A. Act.
By contrast, in the present case, there is neither computation of
compensation of any portion of the subject land nor is there disbursal of
any amount and admittedly, there is nothing to show that possession of
the subject land was taken in accordance with law. Therefore, the
argument of 'computational error' raised on behalf of the respondent
CIDCO is rejected.
18. We also find that the contention raised on behalf of the respondent
CIDCO that if at all compensation is to be calculated, it should be under
the provisions of the L.A. Act by placing reliance on judgement of this
Court in the case of Sumitra Shridhar Khane Vs. Deputy Collector
8/12
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 15:56:14 :::
WP1389_20.doc
and others ( supra ), as unsustainable. In the said case, this Court found
that the landowner had voluntarily given possession in line with a
voluntary affidavit executed by the landowner along with similarly
situated other landowners and that the relief of compensation was sought
after considerable period of time. In such peculiar circumstances, this
Court directed that compensation be calculated under the provisions of
the L.A. Act. As opposed to the said factual position, in the present case,
it cannot be said that possession was voluntarily given, at any point of
time. As a matter of fact, the kabjepavti admittedly does not show that
possession of the subject land was taken in accordance with law. As
noted hereinabove, monetary compensation was not determined or
disbursed to the predecessor of the petitioner, and therefore, reliance on
the said judgement on behalf of the respondent CIDCO can be of no
assistance. In any case, in the said judgement, there is no reference to
lapsing of the acquisition under Section 11A of the L.A. Act.
19. Much emphasis was placed on the aspect of delay and laches on
the part of the respondents, claiming that the petitioner cannot be
permitted to raise any grievance since the award in the present case was
declared on 31.08.1989. This Court is of the opinion that the aspect of
delay and laches pales into insignificance, in the light of the finding
rendered hereinabove that by operation of law, the acquisition in respect
of the subject land itself had lapsed under Section 11A of the L.A. Act.
The lapsing itself was in the year 1989, and therefore, in such
circumstances, the respondents cannot be permitted to take shelter on the
ground of the delay and laches to avoid the contentions raised on behalf
of the petitioner on merits. We have also noted that the respondents have
conceded on facts, that as regards the subject land, no award was
declared, compensation was never determined or disbursed and that
there is nothing on record to show that possession was taken in
accordance with law. Even otherwise, we find that the petitioner, at the
9/12
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 15:56:14 :::
WP1389_20.doc
relevant time, was a minor and his mother was a widow. These factors
cannot be ignored by the Writ Court while considering the aspect of
delay and laches. We find substance in the contention of the petitioner
that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of State of UP
and others Vs. Manohar ( supra ), Sukh Dutt Ratra and another Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ( supra ) and Tukaram Kana
Joshi and others Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation and others ( supra ) inures to the benefit of the petitioner.
20. In the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Vs. Bimal
Kumar Shah ( supra ), the Supreme Court has elaborated in detail, the
constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution.
Various sub-rights therein have been identified. The relevant portion of
the said judgement reads as follows:-
“30. What then are these sub-rights or strands of this swadeshi
constitutional fabric constituting the right to property? Seven
such sub-rights can be identified, albeit non-exhaustive. These
are:
(i) The duty of the State to inform the person that it
intends to acquire his property — the right to notice,
(ii) The duty of the State to hear objections to the
acquisition — the right to be heard,
(iii) The duty of the State to inform the person of its
decision to acquire — the right to a reasoned decision,
(vi) The duty of the State to demonstrate that the
acquisition is for public purpose — the duty to acquire only
for public purpose,
(v) The duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate — the
right of restitution or fair compensation,
(vi) The duty of the State to conduct the process of
acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the
proceedings — the right to an efficient and expeditious
process, and
(vii) The final conclusion of the proceedings leading to
vesting — the right of conclusion.
31. These seven rights are foundational components of a
law that is tune with Article 300-A, and the absence of one of
10/12
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 15:56:14 :::
WP1389_20.doc
these or some of them would render the law susceptible to
challenge. The judgment of this Court in K.T. Plantation [K.T.
Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 :
(2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 414] declares that the law envisaged
under Article 300-A must be in line with the overarching
principles of rule of law, and must be just, fair, and
reasonable. It is, of course, precedentially sound to describe
some of these sub-rights as “procedural”, a nomenclature that
often tends to undermine the inherent worth of these
safeguards. These seven sub-rights may be procedures, but
they do constitute the real content of the right to property
under Article 300-A, non-compliance of these will amount to
violation of the right, being without the authority of law.”
21. The said position of law was followed by this Court in the case of
Rajeev Kumar Damodarprasad Bhadani and others Vs. Executive
Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company
Limited and others ( supra ). We also find that in the facts of the present
case, it cannot be said that the petitioner was raising a stale claim and
that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir
and others Vs. Union of India and another ( supra ) would come in his
way. Merely because the respondent No.3 CIDCO has, in the meantime,
demarcated plots and developed the land, the petitioner cannot be
deprived of his right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution,
which states that no person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law. In the facts of the present case, we find that there is no
authority of law backing the stand taken by the respondents in respect of
the petitioner and his predecessor being deprived of the subject land.
22. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed by holding that
the award dated 31.08.1989 did not cover acquisition of land, which is
subject matter of present writ petition. The acquisition proceeding itself
lapsed by operation of Section 11-A of the Act. As a result, the land may
have to be returned back to the petitioner. But, at this stage, such a
direction will lead to complications and it may be impractical.
Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to determination and payment of
11/12
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 15:56:14 :::
WP1389_20.doc
compensation under the provisions of the Act of 2013. Accordingly, the
respondents are directed to take necessary steps for acquiring the subject
land as per the provisions of the Act of 2013. The respondents shall
initiate the process and complete the same, including disbursing
compensation to the petitioner within a period of one year from today.
23. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Minal Parab
MINAL
SANDIP
PARAB
Digitally signed
by MINAL
SANDIP PARAB
Date: 2026.05.05
15:06:04 +0530
12/12
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 15:56:14 :::