ANIRUDHA MANOHAR KHOPADE AND ORS vs THE UNION OF INDIA THROU. SEC. COMPENT AUTHORITY AND LAND ACQUITISION AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

WP16191_25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.16191 OF 2025 Anirudha Manohar Khopade and others … Petitioners Vs. Union of India and others … Respondents Mr. S. B. Deshpande, Senior Advocate (through VC) a/w. Mr. Shreyas Deshpande and Mr. Sandeep Rebari i/b. Mr. Shreyas Deshpande for Petitioners. Ms. Vaishali Choudhary a/w. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra and Ms. Shazia Ansari for Respondent No.1 - Union of India. Mr. Anil Singh, ASG s/w. Mr. Ravi Kini, Mr. Rakesh L. Singh, Mr. Dhaval and Mr. Krishnakant Deshmukh i/b. M. V. Kini & Co. for Respondent No.2 - NHAI. Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - State. Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Deputy Manager (NHAI) present. CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. Reserved on : FEBRUARY 03, 2026 Pronounced on : FEBRUARY 24, 2026 JUDGEMENT : (Per Justice Manish Pitale) . The petitioners have invoked Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2013’) to claim that the impugned letter dated 15.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 - National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) deserves to be quashed and that the respondents ought to undertake land acquisition proceedings pertaining to the remaining portion of Godown L1 situated at Mauje Bhoirgaon, Taluka - Bhiwandi, District - Thane. The petitioners own some galas in the remaining portion. On the other hand, the respondent - NHAI contends that Section 94 of the Act of 2013 is not available to the petitioners in terms of Section 105 thereof, as acquisitions undertaken as per the National Highways Act, 1956 1/31 WP16191_25.doc (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Highways Act’) are not covered under the provisions of