Dilip S/o Sadashiv Denge vs Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division & Ors.

ORAL JUDGMENT ( NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

The present petition challenges the order dated 10.06.2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, and further seeks a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the excess land acquired and utilized by the respondents beyond the area covered under the Award dated 24.07.2012.

The facts, which are in a narrow compass, can be stated as under:

The petitioner is an agriculturist and owner of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 40, 41 and 42 situated at Mouza Bandarchuha, Tahsil Kuhi, District Nagpur, and his name is recorded in the revenue records. The said lands were acquired for the Gosikhurd Irrigation Project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and a notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued, which was followed by a declaration under Section 6. Thereafter, an Award was passed on 24.07.2012 by Respondent No. 3, i.e. the Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer.

It is the contention of the petitioner that during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner specifically objected to the incorrect and deficient measurement of the subject land and repeatedly requested a proper joint measurement. Consequent to the Award, possession was taken by the acquiring body and its officers. However, the respondents was paid compensation which was accepted by him without protest. It is further narration in the petition that, thereafter also, the petitioner continued approaching the authorities for a correct measurement of the land in question.

In nutshell, it is the contention of the petitioner that the entire piece of land has not been acquired and there is some piece of land which is still vested in the petitioner. He, therefore, made continuous persuasions to the office of the respondent. He places reliance on a letter dated 07.09.2022 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Kuhi, to the Superintendent of Land Records, Nagpur, wherein, according to him, the contention of the petitioner is accepted. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer, vide an order dated 28.04.2023, passed an order that such a correction could not be done, since the land in question has already been acquired and is submerged under the Gosikhurd Irrigation Project. The said finding has been confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner. Both these orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.

I have heard Mr. Sushant K. Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. C.A. Lokhande, learned AGP for the respondent/State.

It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner being a senior citizen, his constitutional rights enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India have been impinged upon by the action of the respondents. He, therefore, prays that the order under challenge be set aside and compensation in respect of the remaining piece of land be granted.

Per contra, the learned AGP, appearing for the respondent/State, vehemently opposes the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further submits that there is a finding of fact recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which has been affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner. He, therefore, supports the impugned order.

The petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs. Sumitra Shridhar Khane Vs. The Deputy Collector of Kolhapur and Ors., in Writ Petition No. 4987 of 2022, wherein it is held that the cause of action in regard to land acquisition matters is continuous. The petitioner places reliance on paragraph 24, wherein it is observed that delay and laches could not be the only ground when the question of land acquisition arises. However, in the present case, the said judgment is not applicable, since this is not a case involving a question of acquisition of land, but there are disputed findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

I have gone through the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. It is a matter of record that the land of the petitioner has been acquired and he has been duly paid compensation for the same. Even though he has accepted it without protest, there is nothing on record to show that the receipt of compensation, which according to him was inadequate, was challenged by him by filing a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Furthermore, as can be seen from the impugned order, both the authorities have recorded a finding that the land in question for which the petitioner is claiming compensation has already been acquired and is submerged under the Gosikhurd Irrigation Project. It, therefore, follows that there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities below, and I am afraid that it would not be proper to interfere in the writ jurisdiction, which is essentially a supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

The petition is, therefore, sans merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Rule stands discharged.