Bombay High CourtWP/545/2024dismissed

Shriram S/O Lalji Sarode v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The Collector, Wardha And Others

2025-10-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Siddheshwar Sundarrao Thombre2 pages

2025:BHC-NAG:10342 1 30-wp 543.2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 543 OF 2024 ( Vitthalrao s/o Haibatao Chafle vs. The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Wardha & ors. ) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 545 OF 2024 ( Shriram s/o Lalji Sarode vs. The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Wardha & ors. ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

Mr. P. W. Jasutkar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. A. A. Madiwale, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr. J. B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 4. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

OCTOBER 07, 2025 1) Heard Mr.Jasutkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Madiwale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Mr.Kasat, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4.

2) By way of these petitions, petitioners are challenging the order dated 11/10/2023 whereby Land Acquisition Officer rejected the applications filed by the petitioners for referring the land reference to the Competent Court for getting enhanced compensation, as well as sought other consequential benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act.

3) Respondent Nos.1 and 3 in their affidavits specifically submitted that the petitioners had given consent and award was passed on 11/05/2023 under Section 33(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. Once the petitioners had given consent, and received compensation, they cannot take a recourse by praying to the Authorities that their application be referred to KOLHE

2 30-wp 543.2024.odt the Competent Court, on the ground that they have received inadequate compensation.

4) In view of the aforesaid fact, the Respondent No.3 have rightly rejected the application. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain both the petitions. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) KOLHE