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

Order Date: 02 September 2026 (Reserved on 10 July 2026)

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Ravindra Shankar Sawant; Anil Govindprasad Jain; Prashant Nivrutti Khedkar (through POA holder Nikhil Radheshyam Agrawal); Shubharambh Properties LLP (through partner Reena Jain); and other assignees.
  • Respondents: Deputy Collector (General Administration), Thane; Land Acquisition Officer, Thane; Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) and other state officials.
  • Subject matter: Compensation for portions of land reserved for internal roads and open spaces in lands acquired for the Nagpur‑Mumbai Samriddhi Mahamarg (Nagpur‑Mumbai Highway) in Villages Lahe and Birwadi, Taluka Shahpur, District Thane.
  • Notifications: State issued acquisition notification on 26‑07‑2018 (Section 15(2)(iii) & 17, Highways Act) and vesting notification on 05‑11‑2018 (Section 18(1) & 18(2), Highways Act).
  • Compensation mode: Agreements executed under Section 19‑B(2) of the Highways Act (acquisition by agreement) in August 2019 and August 2020, with a statutory 25 % additional amount added as per State policy.
  • Key land details and compensation claims:
  • Survey No. 172B (Village Lahe) – 1,877 sq m total; compensation paid for 410 sq m only; petitioners claim 1,467 sq m (internal roads/open spaces) unpaid (agreement dated 20‑08‑2020, amount ₹ 8,791,111).
  • Survey No. 567 (Village Lahe) – 14,906 sq m acquired; compensation paid for that area; petitioners claim 9,345 sq m (open spaces) + 7,096 sq m (internal roads) = 16,531 sq m unpaid (agreement dated 23‑08‑2019).
  • Survey No. 656 (Village Birwadi) – 13,539 sq m acquired; compensation paid; petitioners claim 4,832 sq m (internal roads/open spaces) unpaid (agreement dated 23‑08‑2019).
  • Survey No. 655 (Village Birwadi) – 16,814 sq m acquired; compensation paid; petitioners claim 3,157 sq m (internal roads/open spaces) unpaid (agreement dated 23‑08‑2019).
  • Survey No. 567 (Village Lahe) – 5,560 sq m (internal roads/open spaces) claimed unpaid (agreement dated 23‑08‑2019).
  • Hand‑written clauses at the end of each agreement purportedly reserved the right to claim compensation for the internal‑road/open‑space portions; respondents allege these clauses were later withdrawn by letters dated 13‑07‑2022 (for several petitions) and 20‑07‑2022 (for WP 16450/2024).
  • Petitioners filed the writs years after execution of the agreements (first claim in WP 16450/2024 filed on 30‑09‑2024, four years after possession was handed over).
  • FIR No. 1 of 2026 dated 12‑03‑2026 was registered against the original land owners, partners of Shubharambh Properties LLP, and the Sub‑Registrar for alleged illegal execution of assignment deeds dated 24‑07‑2025, invoking Sections 198, 201, 318(4), 336(1), 338, 340(1) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
  • Interim applications (Stamp No. 11946/2026 and 11950/2026) sought to add the original land owners as co‑petitioners; these were opposed and later dismissed.
  • Counsel: Petitioners were represented by senior advocates Nikhil Sakhardande, Vivek Punjabi, Ashish Venugopal, Shubhra Swamy, Sahil Panjwani, Ritik Gupta, Vivek Salunkhe, and Onam Hingorani. Respondents were represented by Advocate Generals, senior counsel Fredun DeVitre, Bhushan Deshmukh, and various AGPs.
  • Legal authorities cited by petitioners: Supreme Court judgments in Bank of India v. K. Mohandas (2009), Kolkata Municipal Corp. v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024), Brihanmumbai Municipal Corp. v. Vijay Nagar Apartments (2026), Ranveer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016), Murlidhar v. State of Maharashtra (2021), and Pune Ex‑Servicemen Co‑op Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corp. of Pune (2026).
  • Court’s observations:
  • Agreements were executed voluntarily, with the petitioners accepting the District Level Committee’s decision that no compensation was payable for internal‑road/open‑space portions.
  • The 25 % additional compensation was already paid; petitioners made no grievance about the quantum of compensation.
  • Hand‑written reservations were withdrawn by the petitioners themselves in letters to the Land Acquisition Officer.
  • The petitions were filed by power‑of‑attorney holders and assignees after a gap of 4‑5 years, indicating lack of bona‑fide grievance.
  • The FIR and illegal assignment deeds further demonstrate that the petitioners’ claims are orchestrated by entities engaged in land‑deal business.
  • The Court emphasized that under Section 19‑B(2) the agreed compensation is “just compensation” and cannot be altered; the petitioners cannot revert to Section 19‑B(3) for the same land.
  • The Court rejected reliance on the Murlidhar judgment, noting factual differences.

Final Outcome

  • All five writ petitions (WP 1614/2026, WP 11696/2023, WP 16450/2024, WP 15256/2025, WP 15265/2025) are dismissed.
  • Both interim applications (Stamp No. 11946/2026 and 11950/2026) are dismissed.
  • No compensation or any other relief is granted to the petitioners.
  • The matter is concluded with no further pending applications.

Topics: Land Acquisition, Compensation Dispute