14709-25-WP.odt

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.14709 OF 2025

1.Bhagwan Laxmanrao Parde,

Age: 44 YEARS, Occu.: Agriculture

2.Goroba Laxmanrao Parde,

Age: 41 years, Occu.: Agriculture

3.Prakash Laxmanrao Parde,

Age: 39 years, Occu.: Agriculture

4.Vishnupant Laxmanrao Parde

Age: 46 years, Occu.: Service,

All R/o. At Kalgaon Post Mau. Parbhani,

Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani – 4314020 … Petitioners.

VERSUS

1.The State OF Maharashtra

Through Secretary,

Irrigation Department, Madam Kama

Road, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

2.District Collector, Parbhani.

3.Sub Divisional Officer / Special Land

Acquisition Officer, Gangakhed.

4.Godawari Marathwada Patbandhare

Mahamandal, through its Superintendent

Engineer, Sinchan Bhavan, Work Shop

Road, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded

5.Executive Engineer, Vishnupuri Project,

Division -2, Nanded, (Jangamwadi).

6.Sub Divisional Engineer,

Vishnupuri Project Division No.7,

Loha, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded. … Respondents 2026:BHC-AUG:10726-DB

14709-25-WP.odt

{2}

......

Mr. A.B.Kale, Advocate for Petitioenrs, Advocate for Applicant

Mr. R.S. Wani, AGP for Respondents/ State

......

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 27 JANUARY, 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 12 MARCH, 2026

JUDGMENT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-

1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

2.This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

assails the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by Respondent No.2 – District

Collector, Parbhani, whereby the Petitioners’ representation seeking

recalculation and payment of compensation and allied claims came to

be rejected. The Petitioners seek, inter alia, directions to the authorities

to calculate and pay compensation for the acquired portion of their land

by treating it as “Bhagayat” (irrigated) land; to pay interest from the

year 2010, being the alleged date of taking possession / commencement

of submergence; to award compensation for trees including 307 trees

with interest by relying upon the valuation report dated 16.05.2019; to

award compensation for borewells and pipelines with interest from

2010; to grant all statutory benefits from the date of possession; and

further to declare the sale deed dated 17.11.2021 to be invalid.

14709-25-WP.odt

{3}

3.Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners and the

learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State and its officers.

4.The Petitioners state that they are siblings and residents of Village

Kalgaon, Taluka Purna, District Parbhani, and that they are owners and

cultivators of land bearing Gut No.5 admeasuring 3 Hectares 41 R,

situated on the western bank of River Godavari. According to them, the

land was irrigated and developed with six borewells, water pipelines,

lift irrigation facility and sprinklers. They assert that in 2006 they

obtained permissions from the Jayakwadi Patbandhare Department for

installing 5 HP motor, which was operated since 2006, and regularly

paid electricity bills and statutory dues. They contend that the existence

of borewells is reflected in mutation entry No.1599 and that they

received agricultural subsidy for three consecutive years from 2007.

They further claim that in 2006 they planted several fruit-bearing trees

(approximately 790 trees) and were cultivating crops such as wheat,

turmeric and sugarcane. It is their further case that in the year 2010 the

authorities constructed the Digras High Level Barrage at a distance of

about 7 kilometers from their land and, due to the said project, water

entered and accumulated in their land, thereby causing damage to the

land and trees. They claim that repeated oral and written requests were

ignored and that in 2013 a joint letter was addressed along with other

14709-25-WP.odt

{4}

farmers and Gram Panchayat members regarding damage to the land

and fruit-bearing trees due to water accumalation. Thereafter, according

to the Petitioners, Joint Measurement No.4 of 2014 was conducted and

it was recorded that 1 Hectare 38 R land is under water but omitted the

mention of existence of fruit-bearing trees, borewells and pipelines

irrigation schemes and wrongly described their land as “Jirayat” though

it was “Bhagayat”. Peititoners claim to have objected by letters dated

11.04.2014 and 29.04.2015. A second joint measurement was

conducted on 03.10.2015 in which it was stated to have increased the

affected land to 1 Hectare 94 R but again no mention of trees and

irrigation infrastructure, leading to another representation dated

23.10.2017. The Petitioners assert that on 30.01.2018 they wrote to the

District Collector, the Land Acquisition Officer and the Executive

Engineer seeking compensation according to law by treating the land as

“Bhagayat” and in accordance with the valuation report/circle rate

given by the Sub-Registrar. They refer to a public notice dated

12.02.2018 about acquisition of lands and to a meeting dated

01.03.2018 under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, Parbhani,

where it was decided to acquire lands by “direct purchase” and finalize

an “award”. They allege that the proposed acquisition of their land to

the extent of 1 Hectare 94 R was shown as “Jirayat” notwithstanding the

existence of fruit-bearing trees and irrigation facilities and that no

14709-25-WP.odt

{5}

lawful compensation was paid at that stage, due to which they did not

give consent.

4.It is then the Petitioners’ case that due to multiple

representations, a further joint measurement dated 04.06.2018 was

conducted and it was recorded that there are 188 fruit-bearing trees, 4

borewells and one pipeline. The Petitioners claim about 307 additional

trees which had died due to water stagnation since 2010 and that the

authorities refused to record dead trees, though they allegedly assured

that a separate panchnama would be prepared. The Petitioners refer to

subsequent proceedings culminating in a valuation report

communicated on 07.03.2019 and submitted on 16.05.2019 valuing the

recorded 188 trees at Rs.1,31,63,968/-. They contend that by then most

trees were already destroyed and that the 307 dead trees were not

included. They further assert that without notice another joint

measurement dated 21.09.2019 reduced the affected/acquired area

from 1 Hectare 94 R to 1 Hectare 17 R purportedly on the basis of

reference points and that only their land was remeasured out of about

400 persons, allegedly with an intention to harass them. They rely upon

subsequent panchanamas and meetings, including that a committee

visited on 09.05.2019 and recorded 188 trees, 4 borewells and pipelines

and that later panchnamas in 2019 and 2020 noted that several trees

14709-25-WP.odt

{6}

died due to water storage and floods. They then assert that the

authorities relied upon satellite images in meeting dated 23.12.2019

and communicated the same through a letter dated 10.01.2020 to

suggest that there were no trees and according to petitioners meeting

dated 23.12.2019 referred therein never took place as per RTI

information. They also rely upon a subsequent committee exercise

culminating in a report dated 16.06.2021, which, according to them,

confirmed visibility of trees and supported their entitlement, and

contend that even thereafter compensation was not paid in accordance

with the report.

5.The Petitioners state that in meetings dated 27.09.2021 and

25.10.2021, the authorities decided to grant compensation only in a

limited manner and relied upon a High Court judgment in Special Land

Acquisition Officer vs. Chindha Fakira Patil, 2007 (2) MhLJ 130, which

according to the Petitioners stood set aside by the Supreme Court. They

further allege discriminatory treatment in the matter of “excess amount”

under the consent award, contending that others were paid 25%,

whereas the Petitioners were offered only 10%. They claim that they

were threatened that if they do not execute agreement for consent

award and then compensation would be returned to the Government

and they would not get compensation for decades, and therefore

14709-25-WP.odt

{7}

petitioners due to financial distress succumbed to pressure and executed

a sale deed dated 17.11.2021. They refer to an order dated 02.11.2021

granting compensation of Rs. 2,89,60,731/- for 188 trees, along with

100% “dilasa” and 10% excess amount under the consent award.

Thereafter, they contend that upon legal advice they filed a civil suit

which came to be dismissed for default owing to inability to bear court

fees and that they filed writ petitions in 2023 and 2024 seeking

directions to decide representations; the petition in 2024 resulted in

directions to decide their representation. According to them, the Land

Acquisition Officer submitted a report dated 12.03.2025 supporting

their case and placing reliance upon decisions including Chindha Fakira

Patil (Deceased) through LRs vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer,

Jalgaon, (2011) 10 SCC 787 and Gayabai Digambar Puri (Died)

Through LR vs. The Executive Engineer & Ors., [Civil Appeal (Diary

No.

 17566 of 2020), decided on 03.01. 2022], but Respondent No.2

rejected their representation by the impugned order dated 19.03.2025

without considering the report and binding precedents. They also cite

Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9

 SCC 304 and rely upon the

doctrine of prospective overruling, citing Directorate of Revenue

Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora, 2025

  SCC OnLine 235.

14709-25-WP.odt

{8}

6.On these pleadings, learned Advocate for the Petitioners

submitted that since 2010 the State has deprived the Petitioners of use

of fertile irrigated land without paying lawful compensation for land,

trees, and irrigation infrastructure and without granting statutory

benefits and interest. He urged that misclassification of the land as

“Jirayat” instead of “Bhagayat”, and failure to record and value the full

number of trees including those destroyed due to submergence, has

resulted in grave under-compensation. He contended that the consent

award and sale deed were not the product of free consent but were

executed under coercion and unequal bargaining power and therefore

cannot operate as a bar; that the decision-making culminating in the

impugned order is vitiated by non-application of mind, reliance on

incorrect satellite-based assumptions contrary to on-site committee

reports, and disregard of binding precedent on interest/entitlement

from the date of possession is taken; and that since the petitioners have

persistently pursued representations and earlier writ remedies, the

petition cannot be non-suited on delay.

7.Per contra, the learned AGP opposed the petition and the State’s

submissions are: that the petitioners participated in a negotiated/direct

purchase process; accepted compensation on the terms offered; a

consent award was passed; and a registered sale deed dated 17.11.2021

14709-25-WP.odt

{9}

was executed, thereby transferring title; that the transaction has

attained contractual finality and the Petitioners are estopped from re-

agitating sufficiency of compensation in writ jurisdiction; that the

allegations of coercion, threats, discrimination, incorrect measurements,

existence and number of trees (alive/dead), classification of land, and

alleged false satellite-based reports raise serious disputed questions of

fact requiring oral and documentary evidence and cross-examination,

which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India; that the Petitioners have efficacious alternate

remedies including a properly framed civil suit for

cancellation/declaration and consequential reliefs and/or such statutory

remedies as may be available; that the relief of declaring the registered

sale deed invalid is quintessentially a civil remedy and cannot be

granted in writ proceedings especially where vitiating factors are

matters to be proved; and that the impugned order is an administrative

decision on representation and does not suffer from jurisdictional error

warranting writ interference.

7.Having considered the rival submissions, the issues which arise

for our determination are: first, whether the writ petition ought to be

entertained when the dispute involves disputed questions of fact;

second, whether the Petitioners can seek to reopen compensation after a

14709-25-WP.odt

{10}

consent award/negotiated settlement has culminated in a registered

sale deed; and third, whether the impugned order dated 19.03.2025

warrants interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.

8.It is a settled principle governing writ jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India that, though the High Court’s power is

wide, the exercise thereof is discretionary and ordinarily not invoked

where adjudication necessitates a full trial, particularly in cases

involving allegations of coercion, fraud, mala fides, disputed

measurements offer area of land, valuation disputes, and competing

versions of events that can be resolved only by leading evidence.

Equally, well settled is the proposition that where an efficacious

alternate remedy is available, and where the controversy is primarily

factual, the writ court ordinarily declines to entertain a petition.

9.In the present matter, the Petitioners’ own pleadings demonstrate

that the controversy is not a pure question of law or to any violation of

statutory or constitutional rights. The Petitioners’ case turns upon

multiple layers of contested fact; except the admitted fact of acquisition

of the Petitioners’ land, all other aspects such as whether the alleged

water ingress and submergence since 2010 can be treated as

“possession” in the legal sense for purposes of interest and statutory

benefits; whether the successive joint measurements were correctly

14709-25-WP.odt

{11}

conducted and accurately recorded; whether the reduction of affected

area in September 2019 was justified; the precise nature of the land

whether Bhagayat or Jirayat and the factual basis for such classification;

the number of fruit-bearing trees originally planted; how many were

alive as on the relevant date; how many died due to water stagnation;

how many were washed away in floods; and whether dead trees were

required to be counted and valued in the manner claimed by the

Petitioners. The Petitioners also assert existence and value of borewells,

pipelines, lift irrigation and sprinklers and seek compensation for the

same, which itself entails technical assessment. Most significantly, the

Petitioners challenge the very foundation of the consent settlement by

asserting coercion, pressure, threats, unequal bargaining position, and

discriminatory treatment as regards the “excess amount” 10% as against

25% allegedly paid to others.

10.In our considered view, none of these issues can be conclusively

adjudicated merely on affidavits and oral submissions. Resolution would

require leading of evidence, including examination of the officers who

allegedly conducted measurements and panchnamas, negotiated the

settlement, issued communications, held meetings, and dealt with the

Petitioners’ case, as also expert/technical evidence where valuation and

agricultural impact are concerned.

14709-25-WP.odt

{12}

11.There is an additional and substantial legal obstacle to

entertaining the petition in writ jurisdiction in the form of the admitted

execution of a registered sale deed dated 17.11.2021 pursuant to a

consent award/negotiated settlement and acceptance of compensation.

A registered conveyance, executed after receipt of consideration, carries

legal consequences and presumptions under general law. Once such a

transaction is completed, the relationship between the parties is

governed by the contract embodied in the sale deed and the settlement

terms, and the transaction attains contractual finality, subject only to

the recognized grounds on which a contract/instrument may be

impeached. The petitioners’ own case is that their consent was not free,

and was vitiated by coercion, undue influence and threats. Whether that

assertion is true is itself a matter of proof. The consequence, however, is

that the petitioners must first successfully impeach the sale

deed/settlement on legally recognized grounds such as coercion, undue

influence, fraud or misrepresentation before a competent civil court or

forum empowered to undertake such adjudication. This Court, in

exercise of writ jurisdiction, is not equipped to conduct such a fact-

finding trial and to grant relief in the nature of cancellation of a

registered instrument on contested allegations. The petitioners’ prayer

14709-25-WP.odt

{13}

seeking a declaration that the sale deed is invalid is, in substance and

form, a civil relief which ordinarily falls within the domain of civil

jurisdiction, where issues can be framed and evidence recorded.

12.The petitioners sought to invoke land acquisition jurisprudence

on fair compensation and interest and relied upon decisions such as

Chindha Fakira Patil (supra), Gayabai Digambar Puri (supra) and Union

of India vs. Tarsem Singh (supra). These authorities undoubtedly

reiterate important principles governing compensation, statutory

benefits and interest in compulsory acquisition contexts. However, in

the posture of the present case, they do not by themselves negate the

legal effect of a concluded negotiated settlement culminating in a

registered sale deed, nor do they lay down that such a settlement can be

reopened in writ proceedings merely on an assertion that compensation

was insufficient. Chindha Fakira Patil (supra) concerns determination of

market value and compensation principles in the context of acquisition

litigation; Gayabai Digambar Puri (supra) concerns commencement of

interest in land acquisition cases; and Tarsem Singh (supra) arose in a

specific statutory setting relating to exclusion of solatium and interest

under the National Highways Act. None of these decisions dispenses

with the requirement of proving vitiating factors when the petitioner

seeks to avoid a registered instrument or to reopen a concluded

14709-25-WP.odt

{14}

contractual settlement. The petitioners’ reliance on Directorate of

Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora is, on the face of it,

inapposite, as the decision pertains to NDPS law; even assuming it is

cited for general propositions regarding prospective overruling, such

doctrine does not assist the petitioners in surmounting the twin

obstacles in the present matter, namely, the need for proof of

coercion/fraud and the existence of a concluded conveyance.

13.We also note that the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 is an

order passed on a representation. The petitioners’ challenge, in

substance, seeks re-determination of compensation for land and

multiple categories of immovable assets, interest from 2010, and

invalidation of a registered sale deed, all of which would require this

Court to enter upon a detailed evidentiary adjudication. Even if certain

observations in the impugned administrative order are alleged to be

erroneous, that by itself does not compel this Court to undertake a fact-

trial in writ jurisdiction. To entertain the petition would require

pronouncement on multiple disputed factual issues and grant of civil-

type declaratory reliefs. This is precisely what the writ court ordinarily

refrains from doing.

14.The petitioners urged that their civil suit was dismissed for

default owing to inability to bear court fees and that there has been no

14709-25-WP.odt

{15}

adjudication on merits; hence the writ petition should be entertained.

We are unable to accept this submission. Practical difficulty in

prosecuting a civil remedy cannot enlarge writ jurisdiction. Where the

issues necessarily require proof, this Court cannot undertake a trial

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nor can it issue

declarations in the nature of cancellation of registered instruments

between the parties on the basis of disputed factual assertions.

15.For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the

writ petition. The appropriate course available to the Petitioners, if so

advised, is to pursue remedies before the competent civil court and/or

such statutory forum as may be available in law, which would be

competent to frame issues, permit both parties to lead evidence, and

adjudicate disputes including (i) the allegation of coercion/undue

influence and the validity/enforceability of the sale deed and

consent/settlement, (ii) alleged discrimination in grant of excess

compensation, (iii) nature of the land and classification as

Bhagayat/Jirayat, (iv) existence and valuation of trees including the

controversy regarding dead trees and trees washed away, (v) existence

and valuation of borewells, pipelines and irrigation infrastructure, and

(vi) all consequential monetary and declaratory reliefs.

14709-25-WP.odt

{16}

16.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged.

No order as to costs.

17.Liberty is reserved to the Petitioners to avail such remedies as are

permissible in law before the appropriate forum. All contentions of both

sides are kept open.

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]

JUDGE JUDGE

S P Rane