While rejecting the claims for compensation on internal roads and open spaces in Nagpur-Mumbai Samriddhi Mahamarg acquisitions, the Bombay High Court has held that when claimants or landowners give consent for acquisition of their lands and the quantum of compensation is determined on the basis of agreements executed with the acquiring authorities under Section 19-B(2) of the Highways Act, the agreed compensation amount must be treated as just compensation, permitting no addition or substitution whatsoever.
Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Ranveer Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2016) 14 SCC 191], the Court held that the right to seek enhancement and the substantive cause of action itself stand lost when the landowner agrees to a consent award and accepts the compensation without protest. The Court held that the contents of the agreements, including the decisions of the District Level Committee that no compensation was payable for lands covered under internal roads and open spaces, formed an integral part of the agreements, and the petitioners could not be permitted to wriggle out of the basis of determination and payment of compensation.
The Court further held that the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DC Regulations), which stipulated that no compensation was payable for handing over of areas covered under internal roads and open spaces, were not under challenge, and the petitioners could not claim illusory compensation on the strength of judgments dealing with different statutory provisions.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat observed that the writ petitions were filed belatedly, about four to five years after the agreements were executed, compensation was disbursed, and possession of the entire land was handed over. The petitions were not pursued by the original landowners but were orchestrated by power of attorney holders and assignees who were in the business of obtaining such documents from landowners and agitating belated claims.
The Court noted that the agreements specifically referred to the deliberations and decisions of the District Level Committee, which had recorded that no compensation was payable for lands covered under internal roads and open spaces, and the petitioners had voluntarily accepted the quantum of compensation determined by the Committee in full and final satisfaction of their claims. The hand-written portions added to the agreements were subsequently withdrawn by the original owners themselves, which created grave suspicion about the bona fide of the petitions.
The Court further observed that the assignment deed dated July 24, 2025, in favour of Shubharambh Properties LLP was executed long after the lands had vested in the State Government in 2018, rendering the assignment itself suspect, and that the FIR registered on March 12, 2026, against the original owners and partners of the petitioner firm further vitiated the proceedings. The Court also noted that one of the witnesses to the agreements was an ex-partner of the same firm of which the power of attorney holder was a partner, indicating a direct connection between the persons orchestrating the petitions. The Court found that the petitions had not been filed to air a genuine grievance of vulnerable landowners but had been engineered by individuals and entities involved in the business of land deals.
Briefly, the petitions were filed by landowners and their representatives seeking a direction to the respondents to compute and pay compensation for portions of their lands that were reserved for internal roads and open spaces, in connection with the acquisition of land for the Nagpur-Mumbai Samriddhi Mahamarg. The lands in question were situated in Villages Lahe and Birwadi, Taluka Shahpur, District Thane, and had been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use before acquisition.
The respondent-State issued a notification dated July 26, 2018 under Section 15(2)(iii) read with Section 17 of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955, followed by a notification dated Nov 05, 2018 under Section 18(1) of the said Act, by virtue of which the subject lands vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. A District Level Committee was constituted to determine the criteria for payment of compensation. In these cases, compensation was determined and paid by agreement under Section 19-B(2) of the Highways Act, with agreements executed between the petitioners and the State Government in August 2019 and August 2020.
As per the State policy, an additional 25% compensation was paid since acquisition was by consent. Simultaneously with the execution of the agreements and disbursal of compensation, possession of the entire notified land, including the portions reserved for internal roads and open spaces, was handed over to the respondent authorities. The grievance raised in the petitions was that compensation was not paid for the portions reserved for internal roads and open spaces, allegedly violating the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Some of the petitions were filed by power of attorney holders and assignees rather than the original landowners, and hand-written portions were added at the end of the agreements reserving the right to claim such compensation, which were subsequently withdrawn by the original owners through letters addressed to the Land Acquisition Officer. An FIR was also registered against the original landowners and partners of the petitioner firm Shubharambh Properties LLP for allegedly executing illegal assignment deeds after the lands had vested in the State.
