Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 02 September 2026 (pronounced); 10 July 2026 (reserved)

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Multiple petitioners across five writ petitions – Ravindra Shankar Sawant (WP 1614/2026), Anil Govindprasad Jain (WP 11696/2023), Prashant Nivrutti Khedkar (WP 16450/2024) represented by power‑of‑attorney holder Nikhil Radheshyam Agrawal, and Shubharambh Properties LLP (WP 15256/2025 & WP 15265/2025) represented by partner Reena Jain. All petitions were filed against the Deputy Collector (General Administration), Thane, the Land Acquisition Officer, Thane, and other respondents including MSRDC.
  • Land Concerned: Survey numbers in Villages Lahe and Birwadi, Taluka Shahpur, District Thane, acquired for the Nagpur‑Mumbai Samriddhi Mahamarg (Nagpur‑Mumbai Highway). Specific parcels: Survey 172B (1,877 sq m), Survey 567 (area not quantified), Survey 656 (13,539 sq m), Survey 655 (16,814 sq m), and others.
  • Statutory Background: Notification dated 26‑07‑2018 (Section 15(2)(iii) & 17, Highways Act) and 05‑11‑2018 (Section 18(1) & 18(2), Highways Act) declared acquisition and vested the lands in the State. Compensation was to be determined either by agreement (Section 19‑B(2)) or by the Land Acquisition Officer (Section 19‑B(3)) in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
  • Agreements: All petitioners entered into compensation agreements with the State (via the Land Acquisition Officer) in August 2019 or August 2020. The agreements incorporated the District Level Committee’s decision that no compensation would be payable for portions reserved for internal roads and open spaces. As per State policy, a 25 % additional amount was added to the agreed compensation. Compensation was paid and possession of the entire notified land (including road/open‑space portions) was handed over.
  • Petitioners’ Allegations: Claim that the portions of land reserved for internal roads/open spaces (ranging from 1,467 sq m to 16,531 sq m across petitions) were taken “virtually free of cost,” violating Article 300A of the Constitution. They relied on hand‑written endorsements at the end of the agreements asserting a right to claim compensation for those portions, and on letters (some undated) addressed to the respondents requesting compensation.
  • Respondents’ Counter‑arguments: Asserted that the hand‑written endorsements were later withdrawn (letters dated 13‑07‑2022 and 20‑07‑2022) and that the petitioners had voluntarily accepted the District Level Committee’s decision of nil compensation for the road/open‑space portions. Emphasised that the agreements were executed after the land had vested in the State, that the petitions were filed 4‑5 years after acquisition, and that they were largely driven by power‑of‑attorney holders and assignees (e.g., Nikhil Radheshyam Agrawal) who profit from litigating belatedly. Highlighted FIR No. 1 of 2026 (registered 12‑03‑2026) against original owners and partners of Shubharambh Properties LLP for illegal execution of assignment deeds after vesting.
  • Procedural Points: Interim applications (Stamp No. 11946/2026 and 11950/2026) sought to add original owners as co‑petitioners; both were dismissed. The Court noted that the original owners were not parties to the two LLP petitions, and that the assignment deed dated 24‑07‑2025 was suspect because the land had already vested in the State.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: Supreme Court judgments – Bank of India vs K. Mohandas (2009), Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs Bimal Kumar Shah (2024), Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation vs Vijay Nagar Apartments (2026), Ranveer Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2016), Pt. Chet Ram Vashist (dead) LRS vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1995), and the Court’s own earlier decisions (Murlidhar s/o Rama Veer vs State of Maharashtra, 2021; Pune Ex‑servicemen Co‑operative Housing Society vs Municipal Corporation of Pune, 2026).
  • Court’s Reasoning: The agreements, executed under Section 19‑B(2), constitute a consent award; the agreed amount, including the statutory 25 % uplift, is “just compensation” and cannot be altered. The District Level Committee’s decision of nil compensation for internal‑road/open‑space portions was expressly incorporated into the agreements, which the petitioners accepted without protest. The later hand‑written endorsements were withdrawn, and the petitioners’ belated claims, raised through power‑of‑attorney holders and assignees, lack bona‑fide grievance. The FIR and the pattern of similar withdrawn petitions (e.g., WP 2375/2021 by North N South Developers LLP) further demonstrate the lack of genuine intent.

Final Outcome

  • The Court dismissed all five writ petitions (WP 1614/2026, WP 11696/2023, WP 16450/2024, WP 15256/2025, WP 15265/2025) and the associated interim applications. No compensation for the internal‑road/open‑space portions will be paid. All pending applications were also disposed of.

Topics: Land Acquisition; Compensation Law; Judicial Review