Ragho Jayram Patil Decd Throu. L.H. And ORS v. The Land Acquisitiion Officer Alias Sub Divisional Officer Ulhasnagar And ORS
4-WP-2076-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2076 OF 2026 Ragho Jayram Patil Decd Throu. L.H.
and Ors ..
Petitioners V/s.
The Land Acquisition Officer Alias Sub Divisional Officer Ulhasnagar and Ors ..
Respondents ------------------- Mr. Dilip Shinde with Vinay Chavan, for Petitioners. Ms. Tanu Bhatia, AGP, for Respondent/State.
-------------------- Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:
2026.04.10 15:51:13 +0530
CORAM
:
MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD DATE :
10TH APRIL 2026.
PC:
1.
In pursuance of the observations made in the order dated 01/04/2026, the learned AGP has taken specific instructions. 2.
It is submitted before this Court, on instructions, that while awards have been rendered in respect of other Gat Numbers, insofar as the Gat Number with which the present petition is concerned, Respondent No.1 is yet to pass the land acquisition award. 3.
In this backdrop, when the prayer clauses of this petition are perused, we find that as per the prayer clause (a), the Petitioners are seeking a direction to Respondent No.1 to refer the disputes raised by the Petitioners before the competent authority under Section 64 of the Right To Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, varsha
4-WP-2076-2026.doc Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and as per the prayer clause (b), a direction is sought against Respondent No.1 not to disburse the amount of compensation in favour of Respondent No. 2a to 2d and 3, till the objection is decided by the competent authority. 4.
Since the learned AGP has made a specific statement on instructions, that the land acquisition award is yet to be passed, it is evident that the prayers made in this Petition are premature. There is no question of referring any dispute to the competent authority under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 and restraining Respondent No.1 from disbursing compensation to the aforesaid Respondents when the compensation is yet to be determined and the award itself is yet to be passed.
5.
Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed as premature. 6.
Needless to say, the Petitioners would be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in the event the cause of action arises for them after the land acquisition award is passed.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) varsha