Abhijeet Arjun Munde And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:19283-DB 930 WP NO. 8255 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8255 OF 2025 Abhijeet Arjun Munde And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others ...

• Mr. Thorat Nanabhau R, Advocate for the Petitioners • Mr. S. D. Ghayal, Addl.GP for Respondents/State ...

CORAM

:

MANISH PITALE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 23.07.2025 PER COURT :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. By this petition, an innocuous prayer appears to have been made for a direction to the respondents to decide the application dated 26.12.2023, preferred by petitioner No. 2.

2.

We find that petitioner No. 2 has submitted the said application containing vague statements. It is admitted, in the first place, that way back in the year 2005, 0.17 R of land belonging to the petitioners was acquired, for which compensation was duly paid. Thereafter, vague and general statements are made regarding additional land having been inundated under the concerned project, due to which standing trees were also damaged. It is claimed that, Jhs/ 1/2

930 WP NO. 8255 OF 2025 due to the aforesaid reason, the petitioners have suffered immeasurable damage over a period of time.

3.

We are of the opinion that the aforesaid claim, having been made more than 18 years after acquisition of 0.17 R land of the petitioners, not only suffers from laches, but also appears to be an afterthought.

4.

It is surprising that, while the application dated 26.12.2023 is absolutely vague about the extent of land that allegedly suffered further damage, in the present petition it is claimed that land to the extent of 68 R has remained under water since the year 2005. We refuse to believe the assertions now made in this petition on the basis of which a direction is sought against the collector to decide the representation dated 26.12.2023.

5.

In the absence of any specific pleadings raised on behalf of the petitioners, and further, in the absence of any supporting documents substantiating such vague and baseless claims, the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised.

6.

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

7.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Jhs/ 2/2