Anirudh Subash Naik v. State of MaharashtraThrough Principal Secretary

3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {9}4.Land Acquisition Officer foracquisition of land for State Highwayfrom Jalna to Nanded/Sub DivisionalOfficer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.5.The Maharashtra State RoadDevelopment Corporation, Through its Managing Director,Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,Mumbai-400036.… RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 13027 OF 20251.Prakash Ashroba Nirval 2.Rajendra Babasaheb Gadekar3.Rekha Mahadev Dhavale (Died)Through L.Rs. Petitioner No.44.Sarjerao Mahadevrao Dhavale5.Pradeep Dattatray Gadekar6.Shrinivas Dattatray Gadekar7.Kishor Balasaheb Gadekar8.Dnyaneshwar Shivaji Gadekar9.Balasaheb Govindrao Gaikwad10.Tushar Taterao Gaikwad11.Sunita Taterao Gaikwad12.Laxmibai Balasaheb Gaikwad13.Savita Ashroba Gadekar14.Shivaji Gulabrao Gadekar15.Shrinivas Murlidhar Takey16.Prabhakar Shankarrao Takey17.Pralhad Sukhdeorao Nirval18.Parikshit Prabhakar Takey19.Hrishikesh Prabhakar Takey… Petitioners 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {10}Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Principal Secretary,Public Works Department(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.2.The Collector, Parbhani.3.The Committee for Parbhani DistrictConstituted under the GovernmentOrder dated 29.05.2018 Through its Secretary, the Sub Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.4.Land Acquisition Officer foracquisition of land for State Highwayfrom Jalna to Nanded/Sub DivisionalOfficer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.5.The Maharashtra State RoadDevelopment Corporation, Through its Managing Director,Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,Mumbai-400036.6.The District Superintendent AgricultureOfficer, Parbhani.7.The Taluka Agricultural Officer,Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.8.The District Superintendent of Land RecordsDistrict Parbhani.9.The Tahsildar, Sailu,Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani.… RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 13026 OF 2025 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {11}1.Annapurna Vaijnath Masure2.Dnyaneshwar Balkrishna Lakhamale3.Padmavati Balkrishna Lakhamale4.Rangnath Apparao Dhapse5.Sadanand Digambar Masure6.Parvatibai Sahebrao Thorat7.Prabhu Sahebrao Thorat8.Gangadhar Apparao Dhapse9.Devrao Ranuji Abuj10.Ashok Digambar Masure11.Tukaram Sahebrao Dhapse12.Shadanand Shankarrao Deshmane13.Sudamati Tukaram Pitale14.Prakash Rambhau Dhapse15.Tukaram Haribhai Mundhe16.Janardhan Bapusaheb (Wamanrao)Choudhari17.Daivashala Dattatray Deshmane18.Abhijeet Shadanand Deshman19.Amir Khan Wahed Khan Pathan20.Juber Wahed Khan Pathan21.Bapu Rambhau Sonawane (Died)Through L.Rs.21A Anjanabai Bapurao Sonawane21B Rambhau Bapurao Sonawane21CLaxman Bapurao Sonawane22.Rabhoji Bapurao Sonwane23.Manik Bapurao Sonwane24.Tukaram Nivrutti Pitale… PetitionersVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Principal Secretary,Public Works Department(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {12}2.The Collector, Parbhani.3.The Committee for Parbhani DistrictConstituted under the GovernmentOrder dated 29.05.2018 Through its Secretary, the Sub Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.4.Land Acquisition Officer foracquisition of land for State Highwayfrom Jalna to Nanded/Sub DivisionalOfficer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.5.The Maharashtra State RoadDevelopment Corporation, Through its Managing Director,Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,Mumbai-400036.6.The District Superintendent AgricultureOfficer, Parbhani.7.The Taluka Agricultural Officer,Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.8.The District Superintendent of Land RecordsDistrict Parbhani.9.The Tahsildar, Sailu,Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani.… RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 13020 OF 20251.Vaibhav Ramrao Kharat2.Harshad Ramrao Kharat3.Asaram Baban Fand… PetitionersVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Principal Secretary,Public Works Department(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {13}2.The Collector, Parbhani.3.The Committee for Parbhani DistrictConstituted under the GovernmentOrder dated 29.05.2018 Through its Secretary, the Sub Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.4.Land Acquisition Officer foracquisition of land for State Highwayfrom Jalna to Nanded/Sub DivisionalOfficer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.5.The Maharashtra State RoadDevelopment Corporation, Through its Managing Director,Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,Mumbai-400036.6.The District Superintendent AgricultureOfficer, Parbhani.7.The Taluka Agricultural Officer,Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.8.The District Superintendent of Land RecordsDistrict Parbhani.9.The Tahsildar, Sailu,Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani.… RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 13024 OF 20251.Mandodari Sonaji Panchal2.Kosabai Maroji Jogdand3.Kailash Uttamrao Ikkar4.Shivaji Babanrao Lingayat5.Bhagwan Munjaji Shinde6.Trymbak Kishanrao Ikkar7.Baban Hiraji Jogdand8.Rajebhau Punjaji Jogdand 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {14}9.Maroti Munjaji Shinde10.Motiram Sudhakar Lagad11.Tukaram Shivajirao Ikkar12.Rakhamaji Sundar Ikkar13.Pralhad Kundlikrao Ikkar14.Waman Ashroba Kathole15.Vishnu Ankushrao Ikkar16.Kundlik Munjaji Ikkar17.Vaishali Motiram Lagad18.Satyabhamabai Shivajirao Katare19.Sheshrao Sanjabrao Katare… PetitionersVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Principal Secretary,Public Works Department(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.2.The Collector, Parbhani.3.The Committee for Parbhani DistrictConstituted under the GovernmentOrder dated 29.05.2018 Through its Secretary, the Sub Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.4.Land Acquisition Officer foracquisition of land for State Highwayfrom Jalna to Nanded/Sub DivisionalOfficer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.5.The Maharashtra State RoadDevelopment Corporation, Through its Managing Director,Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,Mumbai-400036. 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {15}6.The District Superintendent AgricultureOfficer, Parbhani.7.The Taluka Agricultural Officer,Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.8.The District Superintendent of Land RecordsDistrict Parbhani.9.The Tahsildar, Sailu,Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani.… RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 13018 OF 20251.Ramkrishan Dattarao Take2.Subhash Uddhavrao Take3.Nilawati Dattatray Take4.Dhuraji Dagadoba Take5.Sopan Rajaram Take… PetitionersVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Principal Secretary,Public Works Department(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.2.The Collector, Parbhani.3.The Committee for Parbhani DistrictConstituted under the GovernmentOrder dated 29.05.2018 Through its Secretary, the Sub Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.4.Land Acquisition Officer foracquisition of land for State Highwayfrom Jalna to Nanded/Sub DivisionalOfficer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani. 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {16}5.The Maharashtra State RoadDevelopment Corporation, Through its Managing Director,Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,Mumbai-400036.6.The District Superintendent AgricultureOfficer, Parbhani.7.The Taluka Agricultural Officer,Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.8.The District Superintendent of Land RecordsDistrict Parbhani.9.The Tahsildar, Sailu,Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani.… RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 13025 OF 20251.Vasant Kishanrao Jadhav2.Dilip Kishanrao Jadhav3.Priti Pradeeprao Naik4.Rehana Babalal Tashildhar5.Tukaram Dadarao Deshmukh6.Digambar Kisanrao Jadhav… PetitionersVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Principal Secretary,Public Works Department(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.2.The Collector, Parbhani.3.The Committee for Parbhani DistrictConstituted under the Government 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {17}Order dated 29.05.2018 Through its Secretary, the Sub Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.4.Land Acquisition Officer foracquisition of land for State Highwayfrom Jalna to Nanded/Sub DivisionalOfficer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.5.The Maharashtra State RoadDevelopment Corporation, Through its Managing Director,Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,Mumbai-400036.6.The District Superintendent AgricultureOfficer, Parbhani.7.The Taluka Agricultural Officer,Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.8.The District Superintendent of Land RecordsDistrict Parbhani.9.The Tahsildar, Sailu,Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani.… RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 13019 OF 20251.Ratnamala Uddhavrao Javale2.Vaijnath Haribhau Ghansawant3.Vishwanath Haribhau Ghansawant… PetitionersVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Principal Secretary,Public Works Department(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {18}2.The Collector, Parbhani.3.The Committee for Parbhani DistrictConstituted under the GovernmentOrder dated 29.05.2018 Through its Secretary, the Sub Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.4.Land Acquisition Officer foracquisition of land for State Highwayfrom Jalna to Nanded/Sub DivisionalOfficer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.5.The Maharashtra State RoadDevelopment Corporation, Through its Managing Director,Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,Mumbai-400036.6.The District Superintendent AgricultureOfficer, Parbhani.7.The Taluka Agricultural Officer,Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.8.The District Superintendent of Land RecordsDistrict Parbhani.9.The Tahsildar, Sailu,Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani.… RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 13022 OF 20251.Bhagubai Shripatrao Shewale2.Shridhar Vishwambhar Jadhav3.Vishal Vishwambhar Jadhav4.Vishwambhar Dattatrao Jadhav5.Sandhya Kalyan Jadhav6.Shantanu Prabhakar Jadhav7.Madhukar Babarao Jadhav8.Kalyan Digambarrao Jadhav 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {19}9.Manohar Dattarao Jadhav10.Gopal Manohar Jadhav11.Rameshwar Devidas Ikkar12.Arjun Kisanrao Jadhav13.Pandit Gopinathrao Jadhav14.Janabai Narayan Jadhav (died)through L.Rs.15.1Sukdeo Narayanrao Jadhav15.2Somitra Vinayak Jadhav16.Sonaji Gopinathrao Jadhav17.Satish Limbaji Raut18.Amol Limbaji Raut19.Tanhaji Bramhaji Raut20.Babasaheb Gururakhami Bidkar… PetitionersVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Principal Secretary,Public Works Department(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.2.The Collector, Parbhani.3.The Committee for Parbhani DistrictConstituted under the GovernmentOrder dated 29.05.2018 Through its Secretary, the Sub Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.4.Land Acquisition Officer foracquisition of land for State Highwayfrom Jalna to Nanded/Sub DivisionalOfficer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.5.The Maharashtra State RoadDevelopment Corporation, Through its Managing Director,Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,Mumbai-400036. 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {20}6.The District Superintendent AgricultureOfficer, Parbhani.7.The Taluka Agricultural Officer,Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.8.The District Superintendent of Land RecordsDistrict Parbhani.9.The Tahsildar, Sailu,Taluka: Sailu, Dist.: Parbhani.… RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 13740 OF 20251.Vasant S/o. Gulabrao Ikkar2.Srikant S/o. Gopalrao Ikkar3.Ayodhya W/o. Nagorao Ikkar4.Kisanrao S/o.Ashroba Kathole5.Sunderrao S/o. Vitthalrao Ikkar6.Munja S/o. Shivaji Ikkar7.Parmeshwar S/o. Devidas Ikkar8.Saraswati W/o. Ankushrao Ikkar9.Narayan S/o. Ankushrao Ikkar10.Rakhmaji S/o.Bhaurao Ikkar11.Rohidas S/o. Bhaurao Ikkar12.Ramkishan S/o. Piraji Jogdand… PetitionersVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Principal Secretary,Public Works Department(Public Enterprise) MSRDC,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.2.The Collector, Parbhani. 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {21}3.The Committee for Parbhani DistrictConstituted under the GovernmentOrder dated 29.05.2018 Through its Secretary, the Sub Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.4.Land Acquisition Officer foracquisition of land for State Highwayfrom Jalna to Nanded/Sub DivisionalOfficer, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.5.The Maharashtra State RoadDevelopment Corporation, Through its Managing Director,Napean Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park,Mumbai-400036.… Respondents......Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Chinmay Acharya,Advocate and Mr. Yadhunath Chaudhari i/by Mr. Patik Bhosale, Advocate forPetitioner in WP/3703/2025Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Omkar Kulkarni, Advocate i/by Mr.Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for Petitioners in WP/13025/2025Mr. Rajesh Kachare, Advocate h/f Mr. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for petitioners inWP/13024/2025Mr. Pratik A. Bhosale, Advocate for Petitioner in respective mattersMr. Ajeet B. Kale a/w Ms. Sakshi A. Kale, Advocate for Petitioners inrespective mattersMr. Amol B. Chalak, Advocate for Petitioner in respective mattersMr. Milind Sathe, Advocate General for Respondent-State in WP/3703/2025Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader, Mr. R.S. Wani, AGP for RespondentState in respective matters Mr. Vijay Patil, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. A.V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for MSRDC......CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. RESERVED ON: 09 JANYARY, 2026PRONOUNCED ON: 17 FEBRUARY, 2026 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {22}JUDGMENT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of theparties, the petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage ofadmission.2.The petitioners in all the aforesaid petitions are agriculturistswhose lands are sought to be acquired for the public purpose ofconstruction of State Highway (Special) No. 2A, being an 8-lane SuperExpress Highway proposed from Jalna to Nanded, which is intended tofunction as an extension of the existing Nagpur–Mumbai SamruddhiHighway. At the time of institution of these petitions, the primarychallenge raised by the petitioners was to the communication dated 10thJanuary 2025 issued by the Collector, Parbhani. However, during thependency of these proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer in respectof the said State Highway passed an award dated 29th September 2025.Consequently, all the petitioners, by way of amendment to theirrespective petitions, have extended their challenge to the said award,substantially on similar and overlapping grounds. Since all thesepetitions involve identical questions of law and arise out of the samesubject matter pertaining to the said acquisition proceedings, they wereheard together. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkarappearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3703 of 2025 and 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {23}Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Surel Shah appearing in Writ Petition No.13025 of 2025 advanced elaborate submissions. The learned advocatesappearing in the connected petitions adopted the arguments advancedby the aforesaid learned senior counsels and have also tendered writtensubmissions. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State ofMaharashtra and its officers, and Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vijay Patilappearing on behalf of respondent MSRDC, also advanced commonarguments opposing all the petitions. In view of the commonality ofissues, pleadings, and arguments, all the aforesaid petitions are beingdecided by this common judgment and order.3.The factual background giving rise to the present writ petitions,as placed on record by the petitioners, indicates that the State ofMaharashtra, by Government Resolution dated 12th May 2015,constituted a District Level Committee for the purpose of acquisition oflands through agreement with landholders for irrigation and otherpublic projects in the State. The said Committee was constituted underthe Chairmanship of the Collector, with the Land Acquisition Officeracting as its Secretary, and District Heads of various GovernmentDepartments were appointed as members of the said Committee.Thereafter, on 29th May 2018, the Government of Maharashtra issued afurther Government Order stipulating that whenever land is to be 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {24}acquired for construction of a highway under the provisions of theMaharashtra Highways Act, the compensation payable under Section19B of the said Act is required to be determined in accordance with theprovisions contained in Sections 26 to 30 and Schedule I of the Right toFair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as“the New Land Acquisition Act”). It is the case of the petitioners that if alandholder agrees to accept such compensation and enters into anagreement with the Government, then in addition to the compensationso determined, an additional amount of 25% of such compensation isrequired to be paid to the landholder over and above the statutorycompensation. The said Government Order further provided that thedecision regarding payment of the additional 25% amount is to betaken by the District Level Committee constituted under theGovernment Resolution dated 12th May 2015.4.The petitioners further state that on 26th November 2021, anotification under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Highways Act waspublished declaring the proposed road from Jalna to Nanded,connecting to the Samruddhi Highway, as a State Highway for thepurposes of the said Act, and the lands belonging to the petitionerswere included in the said notification for acquisition. Pursuant thereto, 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {25}a Joint Measurement Survey in accordance with Section 16 of the saidAct was conducted on 10th January 2022, for which notices were issuedto the District Agricultural Officer and other concerned departmentalofficers to remain present. The measurement of lands proposed to beacquired from nine villages namely Chikalthana (Khurd), Chikalthana(Budruk), Jawla Jiwaji, Raipur, Hathnur, Vaalur, Thandulwadi, Hattaand Gulkhand, all situated in Sailu Taluka of Parbhani District, wascarried out in the presence of officers from all concerned departmentsincluding the Agricultural Department, as the survey also includedenumeration and valuation of trees standing on the lands proposed tobe acquired. The survey report was prepared and read over to thelandowners on 2nd May 2022 and thereafter the final JointMeasurement Survey Report was prepared on 16th June 2022.Subsequently, as per the procedure prescribed under the s aid Act, adeclaration under Section 18(2) was published on 3rd November 2022,as a consequence of which the lands mentioned therein stood vested inthe State Government with effect from the said date.5.The petitioners further contend that proceedings fordetermination of valuation of lands under Section 19B of the said Actwere initiated by Respondent No. 3, the Land Acquisition Officer for thesaid project, who called for valuation reports from all concerned 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {26}departments in respect of land, trees, timber, wells and otherimprovements existing on the acquired lands. In response thereto, theAgricultural Department submitted two reports dated 10th April 2023and 17th April 2023 relating to valuation of trees based on the JointMeasurement Survey. It is further stated that on 14th May 2023, thethen Collector of Parbhani visited lands in four out of the nine affectedvillages and orally directed the Agricultural Department to submit afresh valuation report. According to the petitioners, pursuant to suchoral directions, the Agricultural Department submitted a secondvaluation report dated 23rd May 2023 based on Google Earth imagedata. The petitioners assert that the landowners were never informedabout preparation of this second valuation report and that the same wasprepared behind their back. It is further alleged that without grantingany opportunity of hearing to the landowners, the compensationamount under Section 19B(6) of the said Act was directly determinedby the District Level Committee for Parbhani District constituted underthe Government Order dated 29th May 2018 in its meeting dated 9thJune 2023.6.The petitioners submit that when the authorities realized theprocedural illegality in convening the meeting dated 9th June 2023without hearing the landowners as mandated under Section 19B(6), 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {27}notices for personal hearing were subsequently issued by the LandAcquisition Officer, and the landowners participated in such hearingsand raised objections particularly to the second valuation report whichwas prepared based on KML files and Google image data. It is furthercontended that the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation(MSRDC), being the acquiring body, had in its meeting dated 3rdJanuary 2023 issued specific directions that no extraneous materialother than the Joint Measurement Survey Report should be relied uponwhile preparing valuation reports. The petitioners state that uponnoticing existence of two distinct valuation reports prepared by theAgricultural Department and after considering objections raised bylandowners, the Land Acquisition Officer sought guidance from theSuperintending Agricultural Officer regarding which report should berelied upon. The Superintending Agricultural Officer, by communicationdated 30th August 2024, informed that the valuation reports preparedin April 2023 were based upon the Joint Measurement Surveyconducted in accordance with statutory provisions and further in viewof guidelines issued by MSRDC, the first valuation report ought to beaccepted and the second valuation report dated 23rd May 2023 ought tobe ignored.7.It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter Respondent No. 3, 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {28}after considering all relevant factors, passed an order under Section 19Bof the said Act on 3rd September 2024 determining the compensationpayable. It is further stated that on 9th September 2024, the LandAcquisition Officer forwarded a proposal along with the order underSection 19B determining compensation, to the District Level Committeefor decision regarding payment of additional 25% compensation as perGovernment policy. The petitioners further state that the meeting of theDistrict Level Committee was held on 4th October 2024 and as perminutes of the said meeting, which were obtained by the landowners,under RTI, the compensation determined by the Land AcquisitionOfficer on the basis of the first valuation report was accepted. Accordingto the petitioners, they and other landowners gave their consent foracquisition of their lands based on the April 2023 valuation report andcompensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer on3rd September 2024, which stood accepted by the District LevelCommittee on 4th October 2024.8.The petitioners further state that thereafter no steps were takenby the authorities towards actual payment of compensation in terms ofthe decision dated 4th October 2024 and that the petitioners latergathered information that the respondents were not willing to proceedin accordance with the said decision and instead intended to act in 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {29}terms of the earlier decision dated 9th June 2023. It is further statedthat by communication dated 10th January 2025, the Collector,Parbhani, addressed a letter to the Land Acquisition Officer stating thatin a review meeting held by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Maharashtraon 9th January 2025 regarding the Samruddhi Highway Project,directions were issued to grant compensation in accordance with thedecision taken by the District Level Committee in its meeting dated 9thJune 2023 and accordingly to prepare and finalise the award. Thepetitioners, therefore, by carrying out amendments to the petitions,have challenged the award on various grounds including the contentionthat the decision taken in the meeting dated 9th June 2023 is illegal andcontrary to law as the same was taken without granting hearing tolandowners as contemplated under Sections 19B(6) and 19B(7) of theMaharashtra Highways Act, 1955. It is further the contention of thepetitioners that once the landowners had given their consent to thedecision taken in the meeting dated 4th October 2024, the respondentsare estopped from resiling from their promise to pay compensation asdetermined and accepted in the said meeting.9.Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhakephalkar, appearing on behalf ofthe petitioners, submitted that upon publication of the notificationunder Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Highways Act in the Official 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {30}Gazette on 26th November 2021, due process as contemplated underlaw was strictly followed by the authorities. He submitted that aphysical Joint Measurement Survey was duly conducted in the presenceof the petitioners as well as representatives of various GovernmentDepartments. During the course of the said survey, spot panchanamaswere drawn and Form No. 16 was duly prepared, recording totalmeasurement of each landholding, nature of land and details ofstructures and appurtenances standing thereon including houses, cattlesheds, wells, trees and other improvements. The learned counselsubmitted that the panchanamas so prepared were thereafter publishedand finalized on 6th June 2022. He further submitted that subsequent tocompletion of the Joint Measurement Survey, declaration under Section18(1) of the Maharashtra Highways Act came to be published on 3rdNovember 2022 and upon such declaration being issued, a statutoryconsequence followed whereby the petitioners lost the right to object toacquisition proceedings and the acquired lands stood vested in the StateGovernment with effect from 3rd November 2022.10.It was further submitted that thereafter the Land AcquisitionOfficer initiated proceedings for determination of compensation underSection 19B of the said Act by calling for valuation reports from allconcerned departments. All departments submitted valuation reports 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {31}determining valuation of lands and attached assets. However, hesubmitted that thereafter the Collector constituted an ad hoc committeeunder the chairmanship of the Deputy Collector to visit the fields andassess valuation of trees standing on the acquired lands. The learnedcounsel submitted that such constitution of an ad hoc committee wasneither prescribed nor warranted under the statutory framework. Hesubmitted that the said ad-hoc committee conducted inspection behindthe back of the petitioners on 16th May 2023 and submitted a report tothe Collector, pursuant to which the Collector directed the AgriculturalDepartment to submit a fresh valuation report based on KML files andGoogle Earth geographical data instead of relying upon the JointMeasurement Survey report. According to the learned counsel, actingupon such directions, the Agricultural Department prepared andsubmitted a second valuation report which is contrary to the provisionsof law and decision of MSRDC not to consider extraneous materialwhile preparing valuation report.11.He further submitted that on 9th June 2023, a meeting of theDistrict Level Committee was held wherein the second valuation reportwas placed for discussion and was accepted. The learned counselargued that even in the said meeting no opportunity of hearing wasgranted to the petitioners to raise objections or suggestions regarding 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {32}the second valuation report and therefore there was a clear violation ofSection 19B of the said Act, rendering the entire meeting andproceedings void and unsustainable. He further submitted that whenthe authorities realized that the meeting dated 9th June 2023 was heldwithout granting hearing to the landowners as mandated under Section19B(6) and (7), notices of personal hearing dated 12th June 2023 wereissued and hearings were conducted on 26th June 2023. During the saidhearings, the petitioners submitted written objections highlightingvarious statutory parameters required to be followed while determiningcompensation and objected to the manner and procedure adopted forpreparation of the second valuation report as well as ignoring the firstvaluation report based on Joint Measurement Survey.12.The learned counsel submitted that thereafter the LandAcquisition Officer issued a further notice dated 20th February 2024scheduling personal hearing on 27th February 2024 and the petitionerssubmitted detailed written submissions on 26th February 2024 relyingupon decision of MSRDC dated 3rd January 2023 directing thatcompensation should be computed on the basis of Joint MeasurementSurvey. It was further submitted that thereafter the Land AcquisitionOfficer sought opinion from the Agricultural Department regardingwhich of the two valuation reports should be considered. The 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {33}Agricultural Department by its letter dated 30th August 2024 clarifiedthat the first valuation reports dated 10th April 2023 and 17th April 2023were prepared strictly in accordance with statutory rules and procedureand that the second valuation report was prepared only pursuant todirections of the Collector based on KML data. The learned counselsubmitted that the said communication specifically opined that the firstvaluation reports were correct and that the second valuation reportprepared on the basis of third party committee inputs was notappropriate.13.The learned counsel then submitted that a plain reading ofSection 19B read with Section 19C and other related provisions makesit abundantly clear that determination of compensation is a statutoryfunction vested exclusively with the Land Acquisition Officer and sincesuch determination requires issuance of public notice, inviting claims,granting hearing and thereafter adjudicating compensation, thefunction is quasi judicial in nature. He submitted that such functionmust be performed independently by the Land Acquisition Officerwithout any guidance, direction or interference from the Collector,Government or any other authority. The learned counsel submitted thatafter considering objections of the landowners and reply of theAgricultural Department, the Land Acquisition Officer passed a 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {34}reasoned order noting discrepancies between valuation reports andclarification issued by the Agricultural Department vide letter dated 30thAugust 2024 and thereafter determined compensation under Section19B by order dated 2nd September 2024, which was duly served uponpetitioners through concerned Talathi.14.The learned counsel submitted that thereafter, upon completionof adjudication, the Land Acquisition Officer forwarded proposal dated9th September 2024 to the Collector for placing before the District LevelCommittee in terms of Government Resolutions dated 12th May 2015and 29th May 2018 for the purpose of offering direct purchase of land byagreement by offering 25% additional compensation over and above thecompensation determined under Section 19B. He submitted that in themeeting of the District Level Committee held on 4th October 2024, afterdetailed deliberations, the determination made by the Land AcquisitionOfficer was approved, as reflected in the minutes of the said meeting.He further submitted that thereafter all affected farmers bycommunication dated 7th January 2025 conveyed their consent toaccept compensation as approved in the meeting dated 4th October2024.15.The learned counsel further submitted that since the Land 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {35}Acquisition Officer is a quasi judicial authority, any interference by theCollector, Minister or District Level Committee contrary to statutoryscheme is opposed to the letter and spirit of the Maharashtra HighwaysAct and settled principles of law. He submitted that the District LevelCommittee is a body created by Government Resolutions issued underArticle 162 of the Constitution of India read with statutory provisionsand its role is limited. According to him, compensation must bedetermined by the Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter placed beforethe District Level Committee only for approval in terms of Governmentpolicy. He submitted that once the determination made by the LandAcquisition Officer on 2nd September 2024 was approved by the DistrictLevel Committee on 4th October 2024, the same attained finality andbecame binding on the Government. He further submitted that thedecision to offer additional 25% compensation upon consent oflandowners was accepted by the District Level Committee to avoidlitigation and that mere disagreement by the Collector, who is only onemember of the Committee, is inconsequential particularly when thirteenout of sixteen members approved and signed the minutes of meetingdated 4th October 2024.16.The learned counsel further submitted that the directions 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {36}allegedly issued by the Collector in letter dated 10th January 2025 basedon oral instructions of higher authorities were dehors the provisions ofthe Maharashtra Highways Act and Government Resolutions of 2015and 2018. He therefore submitted that subsequent decisions of theDistrict Level Committee dated 4th August 2025 and seconddetermination of compensation dated 7th August 2025 by the LandAcquisition Officer are illegal and unsustainable. He further submitted,relying upon judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC304, that under the scheme of the Maharashtra and National Highwayslaws, award is not merely an offer but is determination of compensationand therefore contention that award is only an offer is legallyuntenable.17.He further submitted that under the Government Resolution, theDistrict Level Committee has two-fold powers, namely to advisegenerally regarding compensation and to decide valuation for purposeof agreement-based acquisition and that only where the LandAcquisition Officer determines compensation exceeding such advice,approval is required. According to him, in the present case sincedetermination dated 2nd September 2024 was approved on 4th October2024, the matter attained finality and if the Government was aggrieved,it ought to have invoked arbitration under Section 19B rather than 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {37}interfering administratively. He submitted that intervention by theCollector and reference to the Chief Minister is wholly illegal. Hefurther submitted that even assuming Government was unwilling to pay25% additional compensation by agreement, the base compensationdetermined under Section 19B ought to have been paid to landowners.18.The learned counsel therefore submitted that subsequent decisionof the District Level Committee dated 4th August 2025, issuance ofsecond notice dated 7th August 2025 for fresh determination ofcompensation and second award dated 29th September 2025 are whollyillegal. He submitted that the Maharashtra Highways Act does notcontemplate any concept of second determination, second award orreview of award. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance uponthe judgments in Radhika Bhalerao vs State of Maharashtra, 2022 (4)Mh.L.J. 797 and Centre for PIL v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 1.19.Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Surel Shah, appearing for thepetitioner in Writ Petition No. 13025 of 2025, submitted that thepetitioner, in substance, seeks enforcement of the decision of theDistrict Level Committee dated 4th October 2024 and a consequentialdirection that the determination of compensation arrived at by the LandAcquisition Officer on 2nd/3rd September 2024 be appropriately drawnup and reflected by way of an award, and in the same breath the 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {38}petition also lays a direct challenge to the purported award dated29th/30th September 2025 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hesubmitted that the petitioner’s land has been acquired for the purposeof a Special State Highway under the Maharashtra State Highways Act.He argued that in all statutory regimes governing compulsoryacquisition, the Legislature provides for appointment of a LandAcquisition Officer for the purpose of determining the amount payableas compensation to an expropriated owner, and under the scheme ofthe Maharashtra State Highways Act it is only the Land AcquisitionOfficer who is vested with the authority to determine compensation. Hefurther submitted that, unlike the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or theRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Maharashtra StateHighways Act does not contemplate “passing of an award” in theclassical sense, and, therefore, the determination of compensation madeby the Land Acquisition Officer under the said Act attains finality,subject only to the statutory remedy of arbitration. In that context, heinvited attention to Section 19B(8) of the Act which provides that ifeither party is dissatisfied with the compensation determined by theLand Acquisition Officer, the remedy is to approach the arbitrator,thereby underscoring the legislative intent that the determination madeby the Land Acquisition Officer is final and binding unless displaced in 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {39}arbitration; consequently, neither the Collector nor the StateGovernment has jurisdiction to sit in review or to modify suchdetermination. He urged that it is a settled principle of law that wherethe statute mandates a thing to be done in a particular manner, it mustbe done in that manner and in no other, and in support of thisproposition he placed reliance upon the Privy Council decis28ion inEmperor v. Nazir Ahmad (1940).20.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the dutiesdischarged by the Land Acquisition Officer under the Maharashtra StateHighways Act are quasi-judicial in character, which position, accordingto him, is well settled. He submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer isrequired to invite objections to the proposed valuation, grant hearing topersons interested, consider their objections, and then determinecompensation by applying the statutory factors enumerated in Section19B(10) of the said Act. He further contended that Section 19D of theAct vests the Land Acquisition Officer with certain powers of a CivilCourt, which further reinforces the quasi-judicial nature of the function.On this premise, it was argued that unless the statute expressly confersa power of review, annulment, reversal or modification, neither theCollector nor the State can assume such power in relation to thedetermination rendered by the Land Acquisition Officer. He then 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {40}submitted that after vesting of land under Section 18(1), and havingregard to Section 19A of the Act, it is only the Land Acquisition Officeror the Highway Authority or persons authorised by them who may enterupon the land vested in the Government for purposes connected withthe highway, and the Collector has no jurisdiction to visit the lands andconduct any purported survey, that too unilaterally.21.The learned Senior Counsel also countered the stand of therespondents that in the meeting dated 9th June 2023 the compensationdetermined by the Land Acquisition Officer was approved and,therefore, the subsequent meeting dated 4th October 2024, whichapproved a different compensation, could not be regarded as valid. Hesubmitted that such submission is fallacious for multiple reasons.Firstly, according to him, what was placed before the District LevelCommittee on 9th June 2023 was not a determination of compensationarrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer in accordance with thestatutory procedure, but at best a valuation placed for consideration.Secondly, he submitted that no hearing as contemplated under Section19B(6) was afforded to the landowners prior to the so-called approvalon 9th June 2023. Thirdly, he pointed out that the notice under Section19B(6) itself was issued only on 12th June 2023, which, in hissubmission, demonstrates that the statutory process of inviting claims 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {41}and hearing could not have been completed prior to 9th June 2023.Fourthly, he contended that a perusal of the determination ofcompensation dated 2nd/3rd September 2024 would unequivocally showthat the Land Acquisition Officer applied his mind to the material onrecord, adjudicated upon the objections raised by the landowners, andthereafter determined the compensation by a reasoned exercise, asmandated by the Act. He therefore submitted that once suchcompensation stood determined, if the State was aggrieved, the onlycourse open in law was to invoke the statutory remedy under Section19B(8) before the arbitrator, and the Collector or the State could notassume the role of an appellate or revisional authority and direct a freshdetermination. He submitted that the entire exercise culminating in theimpugned award is founded upon the communication dated 10thJanuary 2025, which, according to him, is without jurisdiction and isnull and void ab initio; and it is a settled principle that if the foundationfails, the superstructure must necessarily fall. Consequently, hesubmitted that the purported award dated 29th September 2025, beingwithout jurisdiction and being the product of the Collector’scommunication dated 10th January 2025, is liable to be quashed andset aside.22.The learned Senior Counsel further emphasized that a power of 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {42}review is not inherent and must be specifically conferred by statute;therefore, once the Land Acquisition Officer had determinedcompensation on 2nd/3rd September 2024, the same Land AcquisitionOfficer could not have reviewed or altered his own determination onthe strength of the communication dated 10th January 2025. He furthersubmitted that in the affidavit-in-reply the respondents have themselvesadmitted that it is only the Land Acquisition Officer who can determinecompensation. He then relied upon the respondents’ affidavit tocontend that what was approved by the District Level Committee was avaluation report, which, according to him, lends credence to thepetitioner’s submission that on 9th June 2023 there was in fact no lawfuldetermination of compensation. He submitted that the Collector, bycommunication dated 18th July 2025, again acted without jurisdiction indirecting the Land Acquisition Officer to ignore the meeting dated4th October 2024. Referring to the Collector’s affidavit which notes thatthe Joint Measurement Survey was finalized on 6th June 2022 andfurther asserts that the Collector had already sanctioned compensationon 9th June 2023, he submitted that even assuming for the sake ofargument, without admitting, that the purported award dated 29thSeptember 2025 could be treated as legal and valid, there would thenhave been no occasion whatsoever to issue a fresh notice under Section19B(6) dated 7th August 2025 and thereafter pass an award on 29th 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {43}September 2025. He concluded by submitting that the recordunmistakably shows that the State Government, for reasons best knownto it, has sought to avoid giving effect to the determination ofcompensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 2nd/3rdSeptember 2024, which stood approved by the District LevelCommittee, and he accordingly prayed that the petition be allowed.23.The learned Advocate appearing in Writ Petition No. 5709 of2025 has tendered written notes of arguments along with a compilationof events and dates and has, in essence, contended that once the LandAcquisition Officer has determined the amount of compensation inexercise of powers under Section 19B(3) of the Maharashtra HighwaysAct, the same cannot thereafter be modified by any authority. Inelaboration of this submission, it has been urged that the determinationmade by the Land Acquisition Officer was strictly in accordance with thestatutory procedure prescribed under Section 19B, which includedissuance of notice under Section 19B(6), granting opportunity ofhearing to all persons interested, consideration of objections raised bythem, obtaining clarifications from the concerned technical and expertdepartments, and thereafter applying independent mind to the facts ofthe case, expert opinions and applicable statutory provisions. It is thussubmitted that the determination of compensation made by the Land 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {44}Acquisition Officer by orders dated 2nd/3rd September 2024 constitutesthe only lawful determination made after following the completestatutory procedure. It is further pointed out that such determinationwas made in respect of as many as 480 landowners, as reflected fromthe forwarding letter dated 9th September 2024, and that the LandAcquisition Officer also prepared the requisite PRAPATRA in accordancewith the said determination. The learned Advocate has furthersubmitted that under the scheme of the Act read with GovernmentResolution dated 29th May 2018, once the Land Acquisition Officerdetermines the compensation, the role of the District Level Committee islimited to deciding whether an additional 25% amount is to be offeredto those landowners who are willing to part with their lands by consent,whereas those who do not consent are required to be paidcompensation strictly in accordance with the determination made by theLand Acquisition Officer, and that there exists no provision enabling theLand Acquisition Officer to thereafter modify such determination.24.The second principal contention raised in the written notes is thatthe Hon’ble Chief Minister has no authority in law to issue anydirections in the matter of determination or payment of compensation.In support of this contention, it is submitted that the power vested inthe Land Acquisition Officer under Section 19B(3) to determine 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {45}compensation is quasi judicial in nature, particularly in view of Section19D of the Act which confers upon the Land Acquisition Officer powersakin to those of a Civil Court for purposes of the Act. It is thereforecontended that there is no provision in the statute conferring authorityupon any superior administrative officer or even the Hon’ble ChiefMinister to issue directions with respect to determination ofcompensation, which, according to the learned Advocate, fallsexclusively within the domain of the Land Acquisition Officer. It is thussubmitted that the alleged oral directions of the Hon’ble Chief Ministerin a review or war room meeting, and the consequent communicationdated 10th January 2025 issued by the Collector directing the LandAcquisition Officer to re-determine compensation in accordance withsuch directions, are wholly illegal and dehors the provisions of the Actand are therefore liable to be ignored for all legal purposes. It is furthersubmitted that since the entire subsequent process undertaken by therespondent authorities after issuance of the communication dated 10thJanuary 2025 is founded upon such alleged oral directions, the entireprocess stands vitiated in law.25.The learned Advocate has further contended that the authoritieshad no jurisdiction to pass what has been described as a “secondaward”. In support of this submission, it is contended that once the 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {46}Land Acquisition Officer had determined the amount of compensationand the same was approved in the meeting of the District LevelCommittee dated 4th October 2024, the authorities could not haveconvened a second meeting for the purpose of modifying suchdetermination. It is further submitted that even assuming, withoutconceding, that the District Level Committee in its meeting dated 4thOctober 2024 had not approved the determination made by the LandAcquisition Officer by order dated 2nd/3rd September 2024, the onlyoption available to the authorities would have been to decline paymentof the additional 25% incentive amount and to pay compensationstrictly as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learnedAdvocate has further submitted that once the landowners had conveyedtheir consent to the decision taken in the meeting dated 4th October2024, there could be no alteration in the compensation proposalthereafter. According to him, under the Government Resolutions dated12th May 2015 and 29th May 2018, once a decision is taken in themeeting of the District Level Committee and the same is consented to bythe landowners, no subsequent change in the compensation amount ispermissible, particularly because the acquisition in such cases is by wayof agreement and any compensation amount not acceptable to thelandowners cannot be unilaterally imposed upon them. 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {47}26.The learned Advocate has also addressed the contention raised onbehalf of the Collector that the report submitted by the DistrictSuperintendent Agricultural Officer was vague and therefore notacceptable and that for this reason the proceedings of the meeting dated4th October 2024 were not signed by certain members. It is submittedthat no such discussion regarding alleged vagueness of the report of theDistrict Superintendent Agricultural Officer is reflected in theproceedings of the meeting dated 4th October 2024. It is furthercontended that, in any event, the report of the Agricultural Officer wasnot directly under consideration before the Committee; rather, whatwas placed before the Committee was the proposal submitted by theLand Acquisition Officer who had determined compensation byfollowing the statutory procedure under Section 19B(3), and it was thatproposal which was considered by the Committee. On the basis of thesesubmissions, the learned Advocate has prayed that the petitions beallowed.27.In Writ Petition No. 13740 of 2025, the petitioner has tenderedwritten submissions which, as noted, substantially reiterate the line ofargument canvassed by the other petitioners and their learned seniorcounsel.28.On behalf of the Maharashtra State Road Development 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {48}Corporation, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vijay Patil opposed thepetitions and submitted that the controversy sought to be raisedregarding the role and powers of the District Level Committee under theGovernment Resolution dated 12th May 2015 and the GovernmentOrder dated 29th May 2018 is no longer res integra, having beensquarely considered and concluded by a Division Bench of this Court inVidhyadhar Gajanan More v. State of Maharashtrai, Mh.L.J. 2025 (4)470. Placing reliance particularly on paragraphs 40 to 44 of the saidjudgment, he submitted that the Division Bench has categorically heldthat there is no legal impediment to the Land Acquisition Officerproceeding to make determination of compensation in the mannercontemplated by the statute after the State has made efforts to arrive atan agreement with the landholders and such efforts have failed. Hefurther submitted that in the said decision the Division Benchspecifically framed and answered the issue whether theaward/determination made by the Land Acquisition Officer could be setaside in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 on grounds such as the LandAcquisition Officer having taken aid of Government Resolutions, reliedupon reports of the District Level Committee, ignored the provisions ofSchedules I and II of the 2013 Act, applied an incorrect multiplier, oradopted an incorrect belting system, when the statute itself provides aremedy under Section 19B(8) by way of recourse to arbitration if either 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {49}party is dissatisfied with the compensation determined. Invitingattention to paragraphs 61 to 63 of the said judgment, he submittedthat the Division Bench has held that such grievances essentially pertainto dissatisfaction with compensation and can be agitated before thearbitrator; that Section 19B(10) exhaustively enumerates the principlesrelevant to determination of compensation and applies equally to theLand Acquisition Officer and the arbitrator; that extraordinaryjurisdiction under Article 226 ought not to be invoked for suchpurposes; and that even allegations that the Land Acquisition Officeracted under dictation of the District Level Committee or was guided byGovernment Resolutions do not, by themselves, furnish a ground to setaside the award, at the highest constituting contentions to be urgedbefore the arbitrator, particularly when the statute provides a specificremedy and the Court would otherwise be required to enter upondisputed questions of fact.29.On the strength of the aforesaid legal position, Mr. Patilsubmitted that the District Level Committee performs, at best, anassisting and recommendatory role and that the statutory obligation ofdetermining compensation rests with the Land Acquisition Officer, whomay take guidance from recommendations of the District LevelCommittee in the backdrop of Section 19B(3) of the Maharashtra 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {50}Highways Act, 1955; however, it remains for the Land AcquisitionOfficer to proceed in accordance with law and to pass the appropriateaward/determination, whether on consent under Section 19B(2) orotherwise under Section 19B(3). He then submitted that the petitioners’heavy reliance on the order dated 2nd September 2024, projected as aquasi-judicial determination, is misconceived, as according to him thesaid order merely disposes of objections of sixteen landowners and doesnot amount to determination of compensation so as to constitute astatutory offer capable of enforcement. On the same reasoning, hesubmitted that the alleged proceedings of the District Level Committeemeeting dated 4th October 2024 do not create any enforceable right infavour of the petitioners, the minutes being incomplete and, in anyevent, never having been communicated as an operative decision;rather, according to him, they remained at the level of internal notingsand were procured by the petitioners under the Right to InformationAct, 2005. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court inPimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority v. VishnuDev Cooperative Housing Society, AIR 2018 SC 3656, Shanti SportsClub v. Union of India, 2010 AIR SC 433, Union of India v. KartikChandra Mandal, (2010 AIR SC 3455) and State of Bihar v. TripaluShankar 1987 AIR SC 1554, to contend that internal file notings orincomplete minutes do not confer legally enforceable rights and that the 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {51}petitioners cannot, on such basis, seek a writ of implementation.30.Mr. Patil further submitted that, in pith and substance, thepetitioners’ grievance is directed against the valuation of their acquiredlands and the things situated thereon, and such grievance is required tobe redressed in accordance with the mechanism prescribed in Section19B(8), (9) and (10) of the Act by approaching the arbitrator. Insupport, he placed reliance on orders passed by this Court in RealVentures Investment LLP v. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.1810 of 2024 decided on 21st August 2024 and Sopan Venu Gaikwad v.State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 15001 of 2023 decided on 1stJanuary 2024. He also disputed the submission advanced on behalf ofthe petitioners that the meeting dated 9th June 2023 was vitiated forwant of notice or hearing to the landowners, contending that the lawdoes not contemplate such a requirement at the stage of the DistrictLevel Committee and that compliance of Section 19B(6) and (7) was, inany case, effected in the present acquisition proceedings. He likewiserefuted the contention that the award dated 29th September 2025constitutes a “second award” impermissible in law, submitting that theaward dated 29th September 2025 is, according to him, the only awardin respect of the lands concerned, and that no earlier award underSection 19B(3) had been passed. He further submitted that the 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {52}argument advanced by the petitioners that the State/MSRDC ought tohave approached the arbitrator against the order dated 2nd September2024 or the alleged proceedings dated 4th October 2024 is unsustainablebecause arbitration under Section 19B(8) arises only after adetermination of compensation under Section 19B(3), and neither theorder dated 2nd September 2024 nor the proceedings dated 4th October2024 can, according to him, be treated as such determination.31.Mr. Patil also addressed the meeting of the District LevelCommittee dated 4th August 2025, submitting that the said meetingwas convened to recommend changes in the classification of certainlands from jirayat to seasonal bagayat and thereby to recommendhigher valuation, which was, in effect, more beneficial to landowners,and therefore the grievance raised regarding such meeting is withoutmerit. Referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of RespondentNo. 5, he submitted that the challenge to the Collector’s communicationdated 10th January 2025 is misconceived, as no consent award orcompulsory award had been passed as on that date and, therefore, nocause of action had accrued to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction ofthis Court; he submitted that no fundamental or legal right of thepetitioners stood violated. He further submitted that MSRDC, being theHighway Authority and acquiring body under the Act, had initially not 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {53}been impleaded by the petitioners, and that the petition itself was thusdefective at inception. He also asserted that it was incorrect to contendthat by order dated 2nd September 2024 the Land Acquisition Officerquantified and finally determined compensation payable to thepetitioners.32.On the aspect of the communication dated 10th January 2025, Mr.Patil submitted that the Office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, in a reviewmeeting concerning the project, had emphasized that awards for theproject should be passed in accordance with law on the basis of correctvaluation reports and that officials involved in preparation of false orfabricated valuation reports should face departmental enquiry. Hesubmitted that the Collector’s communication dated 10th January 2025,issued pursuant to such directions, was purely administrative in natureand cannot be construed as overruling any quasi-judicial order. He thensought to justify the genesis of the revised valuation by submitting thatafter the final notification and Joint Measurement exercise, valuationreports of fruit trees dated 10th April 2023 and 17th April 2023 weresubmitted, but were found to be false or not reflective of the actual fieldposition in respect of certain lands; consequently, the valuation wasdirected to be re-verified through a different process and theAgricultural Department submitted a revised report dated 23rd May 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {54}2023 indicating saplings where earlier reports had indicated maturetrees. According to him, this revised report was considered by theDistrict Level Committee and unanimously approved in the meetingdated 9th June 2023. He further submitted that after issuance of thepreliminary notification under Section 15(2) on 26th November 2021and completion of joint measurement, the declaration under Section 18was published on 3rd November 2022 and thereafter valuation reportswere submitted in April 2023; however, on noticing seriousirregularities regarding number and age of trees, the Sub-DivisionalOfficer, Selu referred the reports for re-verification and reported to theCollector, whereupon a committee under the chairmanship of theDeputy Collector was appointed and inspection was conducted,followed by the direction to the Agricultural Department to submit acorrected valuation report. He submitted that the revised report dated23rd May 2023 was thereafter acted upon; a proposal was submitted bythe competent authority to the District Level Committee; and the samewas approved in its meeting dated 9th June 2023. He contended that theDistrict Level Committee does not itself determine compensation and,therefore, there was no requirement to issue notice to landowners inrelation to the revised valuation report at that stage; thereafter, noticesunder Section 19B(6) and (7) were issued depicting compensationdetails approved and the landowners lodged their claims disputing 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {55}compensation, particularly in relation to fruit trees.33.He further submitted that upon transfer of the earlier LandAcquisition Officer, the successor officer, instead of proceeding to passthe award on the basis of rates approved on 9th June 2023, entered intocorrespondence and proceeded to accept objections of agriculturists bycommunication dated 2nd September 2024 to consider the earliervaluation reports of 10th April 2023 and 17th April 2023, and thensubmitted a fresh proposal dated 9th September 2024 to the DistrictLevel Committee, which, according to him, was unnecessary,unwarranted and contrary to law because the District Level Committeeproceedings had already been finalized on 9th June 2023. In thatcontext, he submitted that the subsequent so-called proceedings of theDistrict Level Committee dated 4th October 2024 had no legal effect asthe minutes were not approved or signed by the Chairman, namely theCollector, and that the representative of MSRDC was also not presentand had not signed; hence, according to him, those proceedings couldnot confer any enforceable right. He accordingly submitted that thepetitioners’ letter dated 7th January 2025 claiming consent to suchproceedings was illogical and incapable of creating rights, since themeeting of 4th October 2024 did not culminate into a final decision. 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {56}34.Mr. Patil also sought to demonstrate the magnitude of allegeddiscrepancy in valuation. He submitted that for the remainingacquisition of about 204.34 hectares said to contain orchards, the firstvaluation reports dated 10th April 2023 and 17th April 2023 reflectedvaluation of fruit trees to the tune of approximately Rs.416.27 crores,which, according to him, was exorbitant and wholly inconsistent withground realities. The revised report dated 23rd May 2023, on the otherhand, reflected valuation of about Rs.9.17 crores, revealing, accordingto him, a startling difference of about Rs.407.10 crores, whichnecessitated administrative intervention. He submitted that in view ofsuch perceived misconduct, the then Collector recommendeddepartmental enquiry against erring agricultural officials by proposaldated 16th June 2023 to the Principal Secretary, AgricultureDepartment, Mumbai, and that in contemplation of such enquiry theconcerned officials were suspended. He further submitted that despitethe earlier reports having been discarded and the revised report havingbeen accepted on 9th June 2023, the in-charge District AgriculturalOfficer by communication dated 30th August 2024 surprisinglysuggested acceptance of the earlier valuation reports, which, accordingto him, itself reflected the state of affairs in the department. 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {57}35.On the basis of the aforesaid, Mr. Patil contended that thepetitioners have failed to demonstrate any enforceable legal right or anycorresponding statutory obligation on the respondents capable of beingenforced in writ jurisdiction. According to him, the petition proceeds onassumptions and attempts to conflate the concepts of a consentacquisition and compulsory acquisition, whereas a consent award canarise only upon consensus between the competent authority, theacquiring body and the landowners; the petitioners cannot insist upon aconsent award on their own terms. If the landowners are dissatisfiedwith compensation determined in a compulsory process, their remedylies in the statutory framework, including recourse to arbitration, andnot in seeking implementation of incomplete minutes or challenging anadministrative communication. He therefore submitted that in the factsand circumstances, the challenge to the Collector’s letter dated 10thJanuary 2025, being a mere administrative direction intended to adhereto the compensation approved in the District Level Committee meetingdated 9th June 2023, is misconceived; that the petition raises nojusticiable grievance; and that the writ petitions deserve dismissal,reiterating his reliance on the authorities in Pimpri Chinchwad NewTownship Development Authority (supra), Shanti Sports Club (supra),Kartik Chandra Mandal (supra) and Tripalu Shankar (supra). 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {58}36.The learned Advocate General appearing for the State, whileopposing the petitions, drew our attention to the chronology of eventsculminating in the passing of the award and, with reference to therelevant provisions of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955, submittedthat the respondent authorities are empowered to acquire land underSection 15 of the said Act and that the procedure governing suchacquisition is statutorily prescribed in Sections 16 to 19C. Afteradverting to the notifications and documents placed on record, hesubmitted that there is no dispute that the acquisition is for a publicpurpose and that, significantly, there is no challenge to the acquisitionas such. According to the learned Advocate General, the controversy, ifat all, pertains to the determination of compensation and the procedurefollowed in that regard. He submitted that Section 19B lays down acomplete mechanism for determination of compensation by the LandAcquisition Officer, and that before proceeding to determine thecompensation, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to issue publicnotice and call upon persons interested to submit their claims andappear, as contemplated under Section 19B(6) and (7). He submittedthat the statutory notice under Section 19B(6) and (7), followed byconsideration of claims and hearing, results in the Land AcquisitionOfficer determining the valuation of the acquired land and making anoffer thereof to the landowners, who may accept the same. He 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {59}submitted that if the offer so made is accepted by the landowners, theacquisition may proceed by consent and a consent award can be madein terms of Section 19B(2). Conversely, where the landowners do notconsent to the amount offered, the Land Acquisition Officer proceeds todetermine the compensation and pass a compulsory award underSection 19B(3). He further submitted that while determining thevaluation, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to take intoconsideration the statutory factors enumerated under Section 19B(10)of the Act.37.The learned Advocate General then submitted that the DistrictLevel Committee constituted by the State Government under theGovernment Resolution dated 12th May 2015, and made applicable tohighway acquisitions by the Government Order dated 29th May 2018, isonly a mechanism intended to assist the Land Acquisition Officer in theadministrative process and does not supplant the statutory role of theLand Acquisition Officer. He submitted that the minutes of the DistrictLevel Committee are, at best, recommendatory and intended for suchassistance and that, in view of the scheme of Section 19B(3), the LandAcquisition Officer is not bound to accept the recommendations of theDistrict Level Committee. In any case, he submitted, once the DistrictLevel Committee’s recommendations are placed before the Land 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {60}Acquisition Officer, what is contemplated in law is that an offer must beduly made to the landowners for obtaining their consent so that, ifaccepted, an award under Section 19B(2) could follow. He emphasizedthat the minutes of the District Level Committee, by themselves, do notcreate any actionable right or enforceable claim in favour of anyone,and cannot be treated as a statutory offer capable of acceptance so as tocompel making of a consent award.38.With respect to the communication dated 2nd September 2024relied upon by the petitioners, the learned Advocate General submittedthat the said communication represents nothing more than disposal ofobjections raised by landowners pursuant to the notices issued underSection 19B(6) and (7). He submitted that for acquisition by consentunder Section 19B(2), the statute contemplates a clear offer by thecompetent authority and an unambiguous acceptance resulting in anagreement; only upon such agreement can a consent award be made.He therefore submitted that the petitioners’ contention that thecommunication dated 2nd September 2024 is a quasi-judicial orderwhich must be enforced is misconceived. According to him, thecommunication is in the nature of an administrative order and, insubstance, rejects the objections raised by the petitioners; the legalconsequence of such rejection, he submitted, would ordinarily be that 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {61}the process moves towards a compulsory award under Section 19B(3).He contended that the said communication cannot, by any stretch, beconstrued as an offer of a particular valuation capable of acceptance bythe petitioners. He further pointed out that the petitioners themselvesdid not, on the basis of the communication dated 2nd September 2024,assert acceptance of any offer or demand issuance of a consent award;rather, their case of alleged offer and acceptance is sought to beconstructed only with reference to the District Level Committee meetingdated 4th October 2024, which, according to him, undermines theirattempt to found enforceable rights on the communication dated 2ndSeptember 2024.39.The learned Advocate General further submitted that thepetitioners’ case, in essence, is that upon obtaining, through the Right toInformation Act, what they describe as minutes of the District LevelCommittee meeting dated 4th October 2024, which were nevercommunicated to them as an operative decision, the petitioners thenaddressed a letter dated 7th January (as stated by the petitioners)purporting to accept the valuation allegedly discussed by the DistrictLevel Committee in the meeting of 4th October 2024. On that basis, thepetitioners contend that there was an offer and acceptance resulting ina binding agreement and consequently a consent award under Section 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {62}19B(2) is required to be made. The learned Advocate General submittedthat such a submission cannot be sustained either on the scheme of theMaharashtra Highways Act or even on elementary principles governingformation of contract. He submitted that, even under general contractlaw, an agreement must be founded on a clear and lawful offer and anunconditional acceptance in the manner contemplated by law, and thata unilateral letter by a landowner purporting to “accept” an internal orincomplete set of minutes not communicated as an offer cannot beelevated to a binding agreement, much less a statutory agreementwarranting a consent award under Section 19B(2).40.Lastly, the learned Advocate General submitted that thepetitioners’ primary grievance is essentially about valuation andadequacy of compensation and that such grievance is specificallyredressable only through the statutory remedy under Section 19B(8),read with sub-sections (9) and (10), by seeking determination ofcompensation by the arbitrator appointed by the State Government. Hesubmitted that such disputes cannot be converted into writ issues andadjudicated in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article226. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decisions in RealVentures Investment LLP v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and SopanVenu Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and, on the basis of the 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {63}aforesaid, prayed for dismissal of the petitions.41.From the standpoint of constitutional and statutory adjudication,the petitions, when examined holistically, disclose a dispute that isessentially rooted in compensation methodology, administrative processsequencing, and competing interpretations of the role of the DistrictLevel Committee vis-à-vis the statutory authority of the LandAcquisition Officer under Section 19B of the Maharashtra Highways Act,rather than any challenge to the legality of the acquisition itself. Thelands of the petitioners were notified for acquisition for a major publicinfrastructure project- the Jalna–Nanded Super Expressway formingpart of the Samruddhi corridor, and vesting has already occurredpursuant to statutory notifications. The litigation therefore arises in thepost-vesting phase and is directed primarily against the communicationdated 10th January 2025 and the subsequent award dated 29thSeptember 2025.42.We have considered the arguments of both the parties and havealso perused the documents placed on record pertaining to the processof acquisition till passing of impugned award. In order to appreciate theissues involved, firstly, we place on record the legal position thatnegotiates the subject acquisition. The statutory frameworkdemonstrates that once the notification and vesting stages are crossed, 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {64}the legislative intent shifts to ensuring structured determination ofcompensation through a specialized statutory mechanism. TheGovernment Orders of 2015 and 2018, when read together, do notdilute the statutory authority of the Land Acquisition Officer but onlycreate an administrative architecture for facilitation of agreement-basedacquisition and grant of an additional 25% incentive in cases of consentacquisition. The District Level Committee, though important in policyimplementation, operates within a Government Resolution domain andnot as a statutory adjudicatory authority under the Act. Thus, anyattempt to elevate its internal decisions or minutes to the level ofenforceable statutory determinations would run contrary to thestatutory scheme.43.The factual narrative itself reveals that the compensationdetermination process was not static but evolved through multiplevaluation inputs, including Joint Measurement Survey based valuationand subsequent valuation exercises. The petitioners’ principal grievancethat a second valuation report was prepared and relied upon withouthearing may at best demonstrate procedural irregularity at anintermediate stage, but not a jurisdictional nullity. The record showsthat thereafter hearings were conducted by the Land Acquisition Officerand objections were considered, thereby substantially curing any earlier 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {65}procedural lapse. In administrative law, particularly in acquisitionmatters involving large infrastructure projects, courts have consistentlydistinguished between curable procedural irregularities and jurisdiction-destroying illegality. The present case, on the material placed, falls inthe former category.44.The argument of the petitioners that the determination dated6th September 2024 attained irrevocable finality upon allegedacceptance by the District Level Committee on 4th October 2024 is notsustainable in law. Firstly, the statute does not contemplate finalityattaching to any step unless it culminates in a statutorydetermination/award recognizable under Section 19B. Secondly,internal administrative acceptance or committee level approval cannotcreate vested enforceable rights against the State, particularly where theprocess of final award preparation and statutory formalization is stillunderway. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked tocompel the State to act contrary to statute or to freeze a statutorydetermination process at a non-statutory stage.45.The Collector’s communication dated 10th January 2025, even if itreferred to policy level review meetings, cannot ipso facto be read asunlawful interference with quasi-judicial powers unless it is shown thatthe Land Acquisition Officer acted mechanically without independent 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {66}application of mind. The petition material does not conclusivelyestablish such abdication of statutory duty. In large public acquisitionprojects, inter-departmental coordination, policy review meetings, andadministrative supervision are not per se illegal so long as the statutoryauthority ultimately exercises independent decision-making. The mereexistence of higher level policy direction does not vitiate the decisionunless it demonstrably substitutes statutory satisfaction with executivecommand, which is not decisively established here.46.Further, the submission that the Maharashtra Highways Act doesnot contemplate any second determination or second award is an over-simplified reading of the statute. Where the process has not culminatedin a legally finalized determination or where earlier steps are foundadministratively incomplete or inconsistent with policy or statutoryrequirements, the authority is not rendered functus officio. Particularlyin special acquisition statutes distinct from the classical LandAcquisition Act structure, compensation determination is an integratedadministrative-statutory exercise culminating only upon final statutoryexpression. Thus, subsequent determination or re-working ofcompensation prior to final crystallization cannot automatically belabelled as review or second award in the prohibited sense. 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {67}47.Equally significant is the availability of a complete statutoryremedial mechanism. Section 19B itself provides for arbitration as theprimary dispute resolution forum for compensation disputes. TheSupreme Court and High Courts have repeatedly held that where thedispute substantially concerns adequacy, methodology, or componentsof compensation, writ jurisdiction should be exercised with restraintand parties should be relegated to statutory forums unless there ispatent lack of jurisdiction, fraud, or violation of fundamental proceduralsafeguards. In the present case, the challenge substantially attacksvaluation choice, reliance on one report versus another, and the timingof determination and all these issues squarely falling within arbitralscrutiny rather than constitutional adjudication.48.From the perspective of judicial review under Article 226, thecourt is not required to sit as an appellate authority over compensationcalculation or internal administrative decision-making sequences. Thecourt’s concern is limited to legality, jurisdiction, and proceduralfairness. On the available record, the acquisition is lawful, vesting iscomplete, compensation determination process was undertaken throughstatutory machinery, hearings were eventually afforded, and a finalaward has been passed. At best, the petitioners have demonstrateddisagreement with the compensation methodology and the decision torely on a particular valuation framework. Such grievance is remediable 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {68}under the statutory arbitration framework and does not justify exerciseof extraordinary writ jurisdiction.49.The balance of public interest also weighs significantly. Theacquisition relates to a major expressway project forming part of alarger state infrastructure corridor. Courts have consistently held thatonce acquisition has substantially progressed and public projects areunderway, interference at compensation stage must be minimal unlessillegality is manifest and irreparable. Granting relief on the groundsurged would effectively convert writ jurisdiction into a supervisoryforum over each stage of compensation administration, which is neithercontemplated by the statute nor supported by settled constitutionaljurisprudence.50.Viewed cumulatively, therefore, the petitions do not disclosegrounds warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. The petitionershave an efficacious alternate remedy under the statute; there is nojurisdictional error of a magnitude warranting constitutionalinterference is demonstrated and the administrative actions complainedof do not, on the record, rise to the level of illegality that would vitiatethe final award. The proper course is to dismiss the petitions whilepreserving liberty of the petitioners to pursue statutory remediesavailable in law. 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {69}51.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the consideredopinion that the challenge raised in the present petitions is essentiallydirected against the process and outcome of determination ofcompensation and the sequence of administrative and statutory stepsleading to the passing of the final award. The material placed on recorddoes not demonstrate any jurisdictional infirmity, patent illegality, orviolation of principles of natural justice of such magnitude as wouldwarrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. The acquisition proceedings have attained finalityinsofar as vesting of lands is concerned, and the statutory mechanismfor determination of compensation has achieved finality under thegoverning statute. We find no reason to enter in the dispute ofnomenclature used on the document dated 29th September 2026. As towhether it is an award or determination of compensation? Documentitself admittedly shows determination of compensation to be paid to theland owners which in itself is self explanatory document and nothingchanges in favour of petitioners if the document is termed as award.52.The reliance placed by the petitioners on internal administrativedecisions, committee level deliberations, or earlier stages of thedecision-making process cannot, in law, create an enforceable rightcapable of being enforced in writ jurisdiction, particularly when the 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {70}statutory process has culminated in a formal determination. Equally, theplea founded on alleged consent or estoppel cannot override thestatutory scheme governing acquisition and compensation. The Court isalso mindful that the statute itself provides a complete and efficaciousremedial framework for adjudication of disputes relating tocompensation, and it would be inappropriate for this Court to convertwrit jurisdiction into an appellate forum over valuation or compensationdetermination.53.It is well settled that judicial review in acquisition matters,particularly at the stage of compensation determination, is limited toexamination of legality, jurisdiction and procedural fairness, and doesnot extend to re-appreciation of technical valuation material orsubstitution of the Court’s view for that of the statutory authority. Onthe facts of the present case, the grievance of the petitioners, at itshighest, relates to the basis of methodology of compensationdetermination, which is a matter falling squarely within the statutorydispute resolution mechanism available under the Act.54.This Court is also required to balance individual grievances withlarger public interest. The acquisition in question relates to a majorpublic infrastructure project of considerable public importance.Interference at this stage, in absence of clear illegality, would run 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {71}contrary to the settled principles governing judicial restraint in mattersof public acquisition where statutory processes have substantiallyprogressed.55.For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no merit in thepetitions. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:ORDER(i)All the above Writ Petitions, being devoid of merit, aredismissed. (ii) The challenge to the communication dated 10th January 2025and the award dated 29th September 2025 impugned in all thepetitons fails and stand rejected. (iii)It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits ofthe quantum of compensation, methodology of determinationof compensation and it shall be open to the petitioners toavail such statutory remedies as may be available to themunder the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra HighwaysAct, 1955, including remedy of arbitration, if so advised andin accordance with law.(iv)All interim orders, if any, stand vacated.(v)Rule is discharged. (vi)There shall be no order as to costs.[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGES P Rane 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {72}LATER ON:56.After pronouncement of the judgment, learned advocate Mr.Kachare appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.13024 of22025 prays that the interim relief which was operating in favour of thepetitioners since 15.10.2025, should be continued for a period of eight(8) weeks from today so as to enable the petitioners to approach theHon’ble Supreme Court for challenging the judgment and order passedby this Court today. Mr. Kale, learned advocate for the petitioners inWrit Petition No. 13018 of 2025 and connected petitions, submits thatthe petitioners apprehend that the authorities may take possession oftheir lands without following the due procedure of law as contemplatedunder Section 19P of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955. It iscontended that the authorities may hastily take possession withoutpayment of compensation, and here he has prayed for directions to theauthorities to follow the due process of law.57.We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respectivesets of petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing forthe State.58.Insofar as the request made by learned Advocate Mr. Kachare,appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.13024 of 2025, forcontinuation of the interim relief is concerned, we have carefully 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {73}perused the interim order dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Court, whichreads thus:“. Learned Advocate for petitioner states that now the Awardhas been passed and possession of lands would be takenwhich is against the agreement that was entered into.Learned Advocate for respondent No.3 disputes that therewas an agreement. But he states that the Award has beendrawn and further proceedings would be taken up.2 It appears that on 24.03.2025 this Court has specificallyobserved that there is no reason to stay the operation ofimpugned communication dated 10.01.2025, but prior tothat taking into consideration the contention by petitionerthat if there is already an agreement any subsequentcommunication like impugned order dated 10.01.2025 wouldnot matter. The terms of the contract cannot be alteredunilaterally so as to adversely affect the rights of petitionerbased on the agreement allegedly entered.3The dispute mainly appears is in respect of amount ofcompensation, because there appears to be no resistance assuch for the acquisition. Every holder of the land is definitelyentitled to get fair compensation. But taking intoconsideration the fact that now the Award is passed and thefurther proceedings appears to have not been started, wedirect that no further proceedings be taken up till11.11.2025. 4Place the matters for further consideration at 3.30 p.m. on11.11.2025.” 59.By the said order, the respondent authorities were directed notto proceed further towards taking physical possession of the acquiredland from the petitioners while the challenge to the award was underconsideration. The interim protection was thus limited in scope and wasgranted at a stage when the validity of the award and the issuesconnected therewith were sub judice before this Court. 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {74}60.At the outset, we make it clear that none of the petitions beforeus have challenged the legality or validity of the acquisition proceedingsinitiated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955.What has been challenged is only the quantum of compensation and themethodology adopted for its determination. It is an admitted positionthat the acquisition proceedings, including the vesting of the acquiredlands, have attained finality and now what is left is the statutoryobligation of payment of compensation in accordance with law.61.The interim order dated 15.10.2025 restrained the respondentsfrom taking physical possession of the acquired lands while thechallenge to the award was pending before this Court on the ground ofthe methodology adopted by the respondent authorities in determiningthe amount of compensation. In such circumstances, continuation of theinterim relief would effectively stall the concluded acquisitionundertaken for a public project of substantial importance, which hasalready been delayed since the date of notification for acquisition. Onthe contrary, permitting the respondents to proceed further would notprejudice the petitioners’ statutory remedies in respect of compensationor their right to avail of further legal remedies, including approachingthe Hon’ble Supreme Court. On the other hand, any further delay wouldresult in escalation of project costs and continued accrual of statutory 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {75}interest on compensation amounts running into crores, therebyburdening the public exchequer. 62.As regards the apprehension expressed by learned Advocate Mr.Kale, appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.13027 of 2025and the companion matters is concerned, Section 19P of theMaharashtra Highways Act, 1955 contemplates that possession of theacquired land must be taken strictly in accordance with the statutoryscheme, which necessarily requires compliance with the provisionsrelating to payment of compensation to the landowners or personsinterested.63.Considering that compensation is required to be disbursed tonumerous landowners and that the process itself would take time, thepetitioners would have adequate opportunity to pursue appropriateremedies in accordance with law. Even otherwise, merely becausephysical possession of the acquired lands is taken over by therespondent authorities, it would not have any bearing on the issues anddisputes raised by the petitioners in respect of the quantum ofcompensation and the methodology adopted by the respondentauthorities while determining the compensation. 3703-25-WP (+gr).odt {76}64.In view of the above, the request for continuation of the interimrelief stands rejected. However, it is clarified that the respondentauthorities shall strictly comply with the provisions of the MaharashtraHighways Act, 1955 and the applicable Rules while proceeding to takephysical possession of the acquired lands.[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGES P Rane