Compensation agreed under Section 19-B(2) is final and bars subsequent claims for internal roads and open spaces.

The petitioners’ lands situated at Villages Lahe and Birwadi, Taluka Shahpur, District Thane, were acquired for the Nagpur–Mumbai Samruddhi Mahamarg under notifications dated 26 July 2018 and 5 November 2018 issued under the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 (“Highways Act”).

The landowners opted for acquisition by agreement under Section 19-B(2) of the Highways Act. Agreements were executed in August 2019 and August 2020, compensation was paid—including an additional 25% amount under the State policy—and possession of the entire notified lands was handed over to the authorities.

Several years later, the petitioners claimed that compensation had been paid only for portions of the lands and sought computation and payment of compensation for the areas reserved for internal roads and open spaces under the Highways Act and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”).

The Court noted that the claims were raised approximately four to five years after execution of the agreements, payment of compensation and delivery of possession.

Whether the petitioners, having voluntarily entered into compensation agreements under Section 19-B(2) of the Highways Act, accepted the agreed compensation and handed over possession of the entire notified lands, could subsequently claim additional compensation for portions reserved as internal roads and open spaces under Section 19-B(3) of the Highways Act and the 2013 Act.

Whether the omission to award compensation for internal roads and open spaces violated the petitioners’ constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.

Whether the delayed petitions filed through a power-of-attorney holder or assignees were maintainable in view of the alleged suppression of material facts, questionable assignments and lack of bona fides.

Whether the original landowners could be impleaded as co-petitioners in the two petitions filed by Shubharambh Properties LLP.

The Court applied Sections 15(2)(iii), 17, 18 and 19-B(2)–(3) of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955: acquisition under Section 19-B(2) may proceed by agreement between the State and the landowner, whereas Section 19-B(3) applies where no agreement is reached and compensation is determined under the 2013 Act.

A declaration under Section 18(1) results in the land vesting absolutely in the State Government, free from encumbrances, under Section 18(2).

Relying on Ranveer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 14 SCC 191, the Court held that compensation accepted under a consent or agreed award, particularly where accepted without protest and as full and final compensation, constitutes just compensation and ordinarily permits no subsequent enhancement or substitution.

The Court distinguished Bank of India v. K. Mohandas, (2009) 5 SCC 313, because the agreements themselves incorporated the District Level Committee’s decision regarding non-payment for internal roads and open spaces.

It also distinguished Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation v. Vijay Nagar Apartments, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 904, as relating to compensation through Transferable Development Rights under Section 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, rather than consensual monetary acquisition under Section 126(1)(a).

The Court found that the petitioners had consciously chosen consensual acquisition under Section 19-B(2), rather than compulsory determination under Section 19-B(3).

The agreements expressly referred to the District Level Committee’s decisions, which treated the portions reserved for internal roads and open spaces as carrying nil compensation; the landowners accepted the compensation as final, received an additional 25% amount, and simultaneously delivered possession of the entire notified lands.

Consequently, the petitioners could not rely merely on the smaller areas stated in the agreements to contend that the remaining notified portions had escaped acquisition or compensation.

Under Ranveer Singh, the agreed amount constituted just compensation and could not later be supplemented.

The Article 300A challenge also failed because the petitioners did not challenge either the statutory basis of the non-agricultural permissions or the relevant Development Control Regulations under which internal roads and open spaces were to be handed over without compensation.

The Court additionally found the petitions lacking in bona fides. The claims were raised after a substantial delay, relevant withdrawal letters were suppressed, one petition was improperly verified by a power-of-attorney holder, and the assignment deeds in two matters were executed in 2025 even though the lands had vested in the State in 2018 and possession had been delivered in 2019.

Having accepted the agreed compensation and delivered possession of the entire notified lands, they were not entitled to claim additional compensation for internal roads and open spaces under Section 19-B(3) or the 2013 Act.

The Article 300A challenge and reliance on the cited precedents were rejected.

Interim Application (Stamp) Nos. 11946 of 2026 and 11950 of 2026, seeking impleadment of the original landowners, were dismissed.

All five writ petitions were dismissed, and the pending applications were disposed of.