Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

january 2026

Bombay High Court · 2026-01-22

PARSHURAM SHIVRAM SHITOLE vs THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NO.17 AND ORS

Citation / case number
WP/15016/2022
Court
Bombay High Court
Petitioner
PARSHURAM SHIVRAM SHITOLE
Respondent
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NO.17 AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

903-WP-15016-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15016 OF 2022 Parshuram Shivram Shitole and Ors. .. Petitioners V/s. The Special Land Acquisition Officer .. Respondents No.17 And Ors ------------------- Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande with Anjali Shinde, Rachana Harpale and Santosh Kurade, for Petitioner. Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP, for the State. -------------------- Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA DEEPAK CORAM : MANISH PITALE & DEEPAK GAIKWAD GAIKWAD Date: 2026.01.23 14:45:21 SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. +0530 DATE : 22ND JANUARY 2026. PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned AGP for the Respondent-State Authorities. 2. The Petitioners herein are seeking relief of quashing of land acquisition award dated 7th May 2012, on the basis that the entire land acquisition proceeding culminating into the said award itself lapsed by the operation of law. 3. Reliance is placed on Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to contend that in the facts of the present case, two year period from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act had already lapsed before the award was passed. varsha 1 of 7 903-WP-15016-2022.doc 4. In order to support the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners referred to the contents of the award. It was submitted that the award itself records that the last date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act was 2 nd May 2010 in the Talathi office. The two year period for passing the award expired on 1st May 2012 and admittedly the award was passed on 7 th May 2012, after the two year period expired. It was further submitted that in the present case, there was no interim stay to the acquisition proceeding by order

PARSHURAM SHIVRAM SHITOLE vs THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NO.17 AND ORS · Niyam