← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1714/2025disposed off

Shaikh Kadar Shaikh Rustam v. The State Of Maharashtra

2025-07-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade3 pages

2025:BHC-AUG:17115-DB ( 1 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 WRIT PETITION NO. 1714 OF 2025 SHAIKH KADAR SHAIKH RUSTAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS .....

Addl. GP for Respondents/State : Mr. M.M. Nerlikar Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. R.B. Bhosale .....

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE :

2nd July, 2025 P.C. :- 1.

None for the Petitioner.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 refers to the reply affidavit filed on record to submit that the grievance of the Petitioner is already satisfied and nothing remains in the petition. 3.

This petition was filed with a prayer for directing the Respondents to decide the applications / representations dated 09.04.2019 and 31.01.2021, whereby the Petitioner had prayed for return of unutilized land.

( 2 ) 4.

It was the case of the Petitioner that out of the total land acquired in the present case, a part of the land had remained unutilized and hence the same ought to be returned for which the Petitioner is ready to refund the proportionate amount of compensation. 5.

The learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 refers to a document at Exhibit-R10 along with the reply affidavit. It is a letter sent by the Petitioner referring to the amount transferred by RTGS, proportionate to the compensation that was received for 300 sq.mtrs of land that remained unutilized. A further prayer was made for mutating the name of the Petitioner back in the revenue record (7/12 extract), in the light of the proportionate amount of compensation being refunded. 6.

At Exhibit-R11 is a letter dated 22.05.2025 sent by Respondent No.3 to the concerned Talathi to again mutate the 7/12 extract to remove the name of Government of India, NH-52 and place the name of the Petitioner back on the record in respect of the aforementioned 300 sq.mtrs of unutilized land.

7.

This sufficiently satisfies the grievance of the Petitioner and hence the petition itself can be disposed of.

( 3 ) 8.

In view of the above, the Petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [MANISH PITALE, J.] mub