Category: Pre Trial

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 26.09.2026

Bombay High Court: Railway Board Circular Cannot Override 2013 Land Acquisition Act

The Bombay High Court has held that tenants whose structures are acquired for a public project fall within the definition of “affected family” under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and are entitled to statutory rehabilitation and resettlement benefits.

The Division Bench rejected an attempt by the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (DFCCIL) to rely upon a Railway Board-approved Entitlement Matrix to restrict the tenants’ entitlement to merely three months’ notice and ₹10,000 as shifting allowance.

The Court categorically held that administrative instructions issued by the Ministry of Railways cannot override the statutory provisions of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. It directed payment of ₹14.17 lakh to each petitioner, together with statutory interest under Section 80—9% per annum for the first year from taking possession and 15% per annum from the second year onwards.

Dispute Arose From Dedicated Freight Corridor Project in Raigad

• The petitioners were tenants occupying structures acquired by DFCCIL for the Dedicated Freight Corridor passing through Alibag, District Raigad.
• Their grievance was that although competent authorities had already confirmed their eligibility and quantified the monetary compensation payable to them, DFCCIL subsequently prevented the amounts from being disbursed.
• The petitioners had approached the Appellate Authority for Rehabilitation in 2021 as members of affected families/project-affected persons. Possession of their structures was admittedly taken during 2021–2022.

Appellate Authority Had Already Declared Tenants Eligible for Compensation

• On 16 June 2022, the Deputy Commissioner (Rehabilitation), Konkan Division, acting as the Appellate Authority, allowed the petitioners’ appeals and held that they were eligible to receive compensation.
• Those orders referred to the Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 22 May 2018, which provided the mechanism for payment of compensation to affected persons.
• DFCCIL filed review applications challenging the petitioners’ eligibility, but the review applications were rejected. Consequently, the orders confirming their eligibility remained undisturbed.

₹14.17 Lakh Compensation Determined for Each Petitioner

• Following the determination of eligibility, the District Rehabilitation Officer submitted a proposal to the State Government seeking approval for payment.
• Eventually, on 6 November 2025, the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), acting as Administrator for Rehabilitation for the project, passed a reasoned order determining compensation of:

₹14,17,000 for each petitioner

• DFCCIL and the rehabilitation authority thereafter informed the concerned bank regarding payment. In fact, instructions were issued on 6 November 2025 for transferring a substantial portion—₹10 lakh to each petitioner through RTGS.
• The dispute took a different turn shortly thereafter.

DFCCIL Suddenly Halts Compensation

• On 24 November 2025, the Project Manager of DFCCIL wrote to the District Rehabilitation Officer taking a position contrary to the steps already undertaken for payment.

DFCCIL asserted that because the petitioners were merely tenants, they were entitled only to:

• three months’ written notice; and
• ₹10,000 towards shifting allowance.

For this position, DFCCIL relied upon an Entitlement Matrix based on its September 2012 Relief and Rehabilitation Plan.

The District Rehabilitation Officer responded on 8 December 2025, pointing out that the State Government had already approved the petitioners’ eligibility and their entitlement to the compensation.

Despite this, DFCCIL did not release the amounts. The petitioners issued a legal notice on 5 March 2026 and thereafter approached the Bombay High Court in April 2026.

DFCCIL Relies on Railway Board’s 2015 Entitlement Matrix

• Before the High Court, DFCCIL relied principally on a letter dated 23 May 2015 issued by the Director Planning (Special), Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, to the Managing Director of DFCCIL.
• The communication approved an Entitlement Matrix for Dedicated Freight Corridor projects based on DFCCIL’s September 2012 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan.
• DFCCIL argued that the Matrix governed compensation payable to lessees and tenants.
• It also contended that compensation had already been paid to the owners of the structures occupied by the petitioners and, therefore, the tenants could not separately claim the ₹14.17 lakh quantified by the rehabilitation authority.
• Another argument was based on the Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 22 May 2018. DFCCIL claimed that since the structures stood on Gaothan land, the second schedule to the Government Resolution applied and only owners were entitled to compensation.

Tenants Expressly Included in Definition of ‘Affected Family’

• The High Court examined Section 3(c) of the 2013 Act, particularly Section 3(c)(ii).
• The provision includes within “affected family” a family that does not own land but whose member or members may be:
• “agricultural labourers, tenants including any form of tenancy…”
• subject to the statutory requirements concerning the impact of acquisition on livelihood.
• The Court found that it was undisputed that the petitioners were tenants in the structures acquired by DFCCIL.
• It consequently held that the petitioners were covered by the statutory definition and were entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act by applying Schedule II.

Section 31 Requires Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award for Affected Families

• The Division Bench also examined Section 31 of the 2013 Act, which requires the Collector to pass a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award for each affected family in accordance with the entitlements under the Second Schedule.
• Such an award may contain rehabilitation and resettlement amounts, bank account details, house sites, land allotments, subsistence and transportation allowances, amounts for cattle sheds and petty shops, benefits for artisans and small traders, employment-related entitlements, annuity and other statutory benefits.
• Reading Section 31 together with Section 3(c) and Schedule II, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ status as tenants did not exclude them from the statutory rehabilitation framework.

Railway Board’s Administrative Instructions Cannot Override Statute

• The most significant legal finding concerns the relationship between the Railway Board’s administrative instructions and the 2013 Act.
• The High Court rejected DFCCIL’s reliance on the Railway Board letter dated 23 May 2015 and the corresponding Entitlement Matrix.

The Bench held:

• “Such instructions cannot prevail upon the statutory provisions”
• and found that the Railway Board communication could not override the statutory provisions of the 2013 Act.
• Thus, an administrative compensation policy or departmental entitlement matrix cannot be invoked to reduce or take away a benefit that the governing legislation confers upon an eligible affected family.

DFCCIL’s Objection Was Raised at a Belated Stage

• The High Court also found DFCCIL’s conduct significant.
• The petitioners’ eligibility had already been determined by the Appellate Authority in June 2022. DFCCIL’s review applications had failed. The competent authority subsequently quantified compensation at ₹14.17 lakh each.
• More importantly, the Chief General Manager of DFCCIL had itself joined the competent authority in directing the bank to transfer ₹10 lakh to each petitioner.
• Only thereafter did the Project Manager issue the communication dated 24 November 2025 objecting to payment and invoking the 2015 Entitlement Matrix.
• The Court characterised this objection as belated.

Government Resolution Also Could Not Reduce Statutory Benefits

• DFCCIL’s reliance on the Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 22 May 2018 also failed.
• The High Court noted that paragraph 6 of the Government Resolution itself recognised that where the compensation or relief available under the 2013 Act was higher, the higher statutory benefit would prevail.
• The Bench connected this principle with Section 108 of the 2013 Act, which gives affected families the option to avail themselves of better compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement benefits.
• Consequently, DFCCIL could not rely upon the second schedule to the Government Resolution to reduce the petitioners’ statutory entitlement.

Bombay HC Orders ₹14.17 Lakh Compensation to Each Tenant

• The Court rejected the grounds advanced by DFCCIL and allowed all the connected writ petitions.
• It held that each petitioner was entitled to:
• ₹14,17,000 as compensation, along with statutory interest
• The principal amount had already been deposited by DFCCIL. The Court therefore ordered that ₹14.17 lakh be disbursed to each petitioner within two weeks.

9% Interest for First Year and 15% Thereafter

• The petitioners had sought interest at 18% per annum.
• The High Court did not grant the claimed 18% rate. Instead, it applied the statutory interest mechanism contained in Section 80 of the 2013 Act.
• According to the judgment, delayed payment attracts:
• 9% per annum for the first year from the date possession was taken, and 15% per annum from the second year onwards.
• The Court considered statutory interest appropriate because DFCCIL had taken an “unreasonable stand belatedly” and had deprived the petitioners of their rightful dues without justification.
• It particularly noted that DFCCIL had initially directed substantial payment of ₹10 lakh each through RTGS and then suddenly reversed its position and objected to the disbursement.

Time-Bound Directions for Payment of Interest

• The High Court laid down a specific schedule for implementation.
• The competent authority was directed to calculate the interest payable to each petitioner within four weeks.
• It must thereafter communicate the calculation to the Chief General Manager and Project Manager of DFCCIL within one week.
• DFCCIL must then deposit the interest amount with the competent authority within two weeks, following which the authority must disburse it to the petitioners within one further week.

Final Decision

• The Bombay High Court made the rule absolute and allowed all seven connected writ petitions.

The petitioners were:

• Sanjay Baban Girhe, Heena Suhas Niromkar, Vijaykumar Subedar Mourya, Rajendra Muktaji Shinde, Vandana Ulhas Girhe, Mahesh Mahillappa Kallure and Sambhaji Shivhar Mule.
• Each petitioner is to receive ₹14.17 lakh plus statutory interest under Section 80 of the 2013 Act.

Key Takeaway

The judgment establishes an important principle for land acquisition and infrastructure projects: tenancy does not by itself exclude a person from rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.

Where a tenant satisfies the statutory definition of an “affected family” under Section 3(c), the entitlement must be determined under the Act, including Section 31 and Schedule II. An internal policy, project-specific Entitlement Matrix, Railway Board instruction or State Government resolution cannot be used to dilute a superior statutory entitlement.

The ruling is particularly significant for infrastructure projects undertaken by government corporations because the Court made clear that administrative instructions must yield to the governing legislation, while Section 108 protects an affected family’s entitlement to opt for better compensation and rehabilitation benefits.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 25.09.2026

Bombay High Court Awards ₹8.14 Lakh Compensation to Parents of Passenger Who Fell From Train

The Bombay High Court has awarded ₹8,14,641 as compensation to the parents of a 26-year-old railway passenger who died after falling from a local train, setting aside a Railway Claims Tribunal order that had treated the death as a case of trespassing on railway tracks.

Justice Aarti Sathe held that entries in railway records may be admissible under Section 191 of the Railways Act, 1989, but they do not become conclusive proof merely because they form part of official railway records. Their reliability and evidentiary value must still be judicially tested, particularly when they conflict with independent evidence.

The Court found that the Railway Claims Tribunal had ignored the inquest panchanama, relied heavily on a DRM report containing only a tentative conclusion, and reached a finding of trespassing despite there being no eyewitness or other evidence establishing that the deceased was crossing the railway tracks.

Parents Challenge Rejection of Railway Compensation Claim

• The appeal was filed by Waman Maruti Suryawanshi and Prabhavati Waman Suryawanshi, parents of deceased Rahul Waman Suryawanshi, challenging the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai’s judgment dated 20 September 2019, which had dismissed their compensation claim.
• The appeal was filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
• At the relevant time, Rahul was employed with the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) and, according to his parents, was the sole breadwinner of the family. They claimed to have been financially dependent upon him.

Parents Said Son Accidentally Fell From Moving Local Train

• According to the appellants, on 22 March 2015, Rahul purchased a valid railway ticket at Ghansoli Railway Station and boarded a local train for Airoli.
• Their case was that while the train was travelling between Ghansoli and Rabale railway stations, Rahul accidentally fell from the moving train, suffered serious injuries and died before he could be admitted to hospital.
• The parents further claimed that a railway ticket was recovered from Rahul’s body and recorded in the inquest panchanama, though the ticket was subsequently misplaced by them.
• They filed a compensation claim under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 on 9 April 2015.

Railways Claimed Deceased Was Trespassing

• Central Railway disputed the claim.
• Following a statutory investigation under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules, 2003, the Divisional Railway Manager’s report concluded that Rahul had been trespassing on the railway track and was injured after being hit by a train.
• The Railways relied, among other things, on a Station Master’s memo recording that an unknown person aged about 26 years had allegedly been hit by an unknown train while trespassing.
• On that basis, the Railways denied that Rahul’s death constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) and also disputed that he was a bona fide passenger.

Tribunal Found Him to Be a Bona Fide Passenger but Still Rejected Compensation

• Significantly, the Railway Claims Tribunal itself found from the inquest panchanama that Rahul had been carrying a valid railway ticket and was therefore a bona fide passenger.
• However, the Tribunal nevertheless concluded that the parents had failed to establish that Rahul had fallen from a local train.
• It instead accepted the theory that he had been knocked down by an unknown train between Ghansoli and Rabale and consequently dismissed the compensation claim.
• This apparent inconsistency became an important issue before the Bombay High Court.

No Eyewitness Supported Railways’ Trespassing Theory

• The High Court found the Tribunal’s conclusion erroneous.
• Justice Sathe noted that there was “absolutely no eyewitness” and no evidence led by the Railways to establish that Rahul was actually crossing or trespassing on the railway tracks.
• The Tribunal had essentially relied upon the DRM report and Station Master’s memo without independently examining whether the factual conclusion recorded therein was correct.
• More importantly, the office note forming part of the DRM report itself did not conclusively state that Rahul was trespassing. It merely stated that the incident “might have taken place while the victim was crossing Railway Track.”
• The High Court therefore found that a tentative departmental conclusion could not, without supporting evidence, establish trespassing.

Inquest Panchanama Recorded Fall From Local Train and Recovery of Ticket

• The High Court attached considerable significance to the inquest panchanama, which the Tribunal had failed to properly consider.
• The document recorded that Rahul had “fallen down from unknown local train” and sustained injuries.
• It also expressly recorded that when his body was checked, authorities found, among other belongings, a railway ticket.
• The panchanama further recorded the conclusion that Rahul had died due to a fall from an unknown local train after sustaining serious injuries, subject to determination of the medical cause of death through post-mortem examination.
• The High Court observed that the DRM report had been prepared while ignoring this crucial recording in the inquest panchanama.

Railway Records Admissible, But Not Conclusive Proof

• One of the most significant legal findings in the judgment concerns Section 191 of the Railways Act.
• The Railways argued that the DRM report resulted from a statutory investigation and had sufficient evidentiary value under Section 191.
• The High Court rejected the argument that this gave the report conclusive status.

Justice Sathe held that Section 191 makes entries contained in railway records admissible in evidence, but:

“the same does not render them conclusive proof as facts stated therein.”

• The credibility of such records must still be judicially tested for reliability and corroboration, particularly where the railway records conflict with independent evidence.
• For this proposition, the Court also relied upon the Orissa High Court’s decision in Basanta Mangaraj & Anr. v. Union of India, F.A.O. No. 170 of 2025.

Accidental Fall From Passenger Train Is an ‘Untoward Incident’

• Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act expressly includes within the definition of an “untoward incident” the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers.
• The High Court noted that the Tribunal had already found Rahul to be a bona fide passenger carrying a valid ticket.
• Once that finding existed, the Tribunal could not simply rely upon the Station Master’s memo and DRM report to conclude that there was no untoward incident, particularly in the absence of evidence establishing trespassing.

Negligence of Passenger Does Not by Itself Defeat Compensation

• The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court decisions in Jameela & Ors. v. Union of India, 2010 ACJ 2453 and Union of India v. Rina Devi, 2018 ACJ 1441.
• The judgment reiterated that where a passenger falls from a running train during the journey, the incident constitutes an untoward incident and the Railways would be liable unless the case falls within one of the statutory exceptions under Section 124A.
• The statutory exceptions include death or injury caused by suicide or attempted suicide, self-inflicted injury, the passenger’s own criminal act, intoxication or insanity, and specified natural or medical causes.
• The Court referred to Jameela for the distinction between ordinary negligence and the “criminal act” contemplated by the proviso to Section 124A. The Supreme Court had explained that even negligent or rash conduct, without more, does not necessarily amount to the criminal act contemplated by the statutory exception.

Tribunal Cannot Act as Expert on Nature of Injuries

• The High Court also criticised the Tribunal’s attempt to infer from the nature of Rahul’s injuries that he must have been knocked down or run over by a train rather than having fallen from one.
• Justice Sathe held that the Tribunal was not an expert body competent to draw such a medical or technical conclusion without supporting evidence.
• There was nothing on record establishing that the injuries were of a kind that could only have resulted from being struck by a train.
• The Court therefore held that the Tribunal’s personal opinion regarding the nature of the injuries could not become the decisive basis for determining how the accident occurred.

Railways Failed to Establish Section 124A Exception

• The High Court further found that the Tribunal had failed to properly examine whether Rahul’s death actually fell within any of the exceptions contained in clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124A.
• In the absence of such a finding, denial of compensation was held to be legally unsustainable.
• The Court accordingly concluded that the Tribunal’s judgment deserved to be set aside.

Railways Act Is Beneficial Legislation and Must Receive Liberal Interpretation

• Justice Sathe also emphasised the beneficial nature of the Railways Act.
• Rahul’s father and mother were undisputedly his dependants within the meaning of Section 123(b).
• The Court observed that where legislation is beneficial in nature, it should receive a liberal interpretation and, where two constructions are reasonably possible, the interpretation favouring the beneficiary should be preferred.
• According to the High Court, the Tribunal had adopted a narrow and erroneous interpretation which deprived the deceased passenger’s family of the benefit intended by the legislation.

Compensation: ₹8 Lakh or ₹4 Lakh Plus Interest?

• The accident occurred on 22 March 2015, when the prescribed compensation for death was ₹4 lakh.
• However, by the time the Tribunal delivered its judgment on 20 September 2019, the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules had been amended and compensation for death had been enhanced to ₹8 lakh.
• Applying the principle in Rina Devi, the High Court compared the enhanced statutory compensation with the original ₹4 lakh amount together with applicable interest.
• The Court applied interest at 9% per annum from the date of the accident, finding that ₹4 lakh together with interest up to the date of its judgment came to ₹8,14,641.
• Since this was higher than the amended fixed compensation of ₹8 lakh, the Court awarded the higher figure.

Bombay High Court Awards ₹8,14,641 to Parents

• The High Court ultimately allowed the First Appeal and quashed the Railway Claims Tribunal’s judgment dated 20 September 2019.
• The parents’ compensation claim was allowed for ₹8,14,641, to be distributed equally between them.
• Central Railway was directed to deposit the amount into their bank accounts within eight weeks from the date on which the appellants furnish their bank details to the Chief Claim Officer, Central Railway.
• If the Railways fails to deposit the compensation within the stipulated period, the amount will carry further interest at 9% per annum until payment.

Key Takeaway

The judgment establishes an important evidentiary principle for railway compensation cases: departmental railway records such as DRM reports and Station Master memos may be admissible, but they are not conclusive proof of how an accident occurred.

Where the Railways alleges trespassing, its internal records must still withstand judicial scrutiny and be tested against independent evidence. A tentative departmental statement that an accident “might” have occurred while crossing railway tracks cannot automatically outweigh an inquest panchanama, the recovery of a valid railway ticket and the absence of any eyewitness supporting the trespassing theory.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 21.09.2026

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR After Parties Reconcile Redevelopment Dispute

The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR arising from a dispute between a member of a co-operative housing society and persons allegedly involved with the new developer appointed for the society’s redevelopment, after the complainant and the accused reconciled their dispute and filed consent affidavits.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav, while allowing a batch of six petitions, explained that Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) substantially reproduces the inherent powers earlier contained in Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and enables High Courts to intervene to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The order was passed on September 18, 2026, with the lead matter being Mohammed Jasim Bhati v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Criminal Writ Petition No. 4532 of 2026.

Six Petitions Sought Quashing of Same FIR

• The High Court was dealing with six petitions arising from FIR No. 0456 of 2026 registered with Versova Police Station, Mumbai.
• The lead petition was filed by Mohammed Jasim Bhati. The connected petitions were filed by Rajeev Narayandas Bhathija, Samina Rayees Khan, Horace Poorekhorsandi, Abdul Kader Haji Noor Mohammed and Shakeel Ahmed Bhati.
• All the petitions were filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR.

FIR Arose From Society Redevelopment Dispute

• The complainant was a member of a co-operative housing society and had a dispute concerning his gala premises in relation to the redevelopment undertaken by the society.
• According to the order, the petitioners were accused by the complainant of having colluded with the new developer appointed by the society.
• However, the Court specifically noted that the complainant’s grievance was restricted to his own gala premises.
• The dispute subsequently took a different course when the complainant and petitioners reconciled and jointly sought to bring the criminal proceedings to an end.

Former Developer Seeks to Intervene

• An additional issue arose when the society’s former developer, whose Development Agreement had been terminated, sought to intervene in the criminal writ petitions.
• Counsel appearing for the old developer argued that the FIR concerning the complainant’s gala also affected certain substantive rights of the former developer.
• The Court was informed that several civil proceedings relating to the parties’ substantive rights were already pending before the High Court as well as in arbitration.
• The old developer therefore sought time to intervene in the proceedings.

Bombay HC Rejects Old Developer’s Intervention

• The High Court rejected the intervention request outright.
• Justice Jadhav observed that whatever substantive rights the old developer might have against the society concerning the terminated Development Agreement could be pursued in the appropriate proceedings available under law.
• The Court noted that the former developer had already initiated civil proceedings before the High Court and arbitration proceedings.
• His intervention in criminal petitions which the complainant and accused themselves wanted to have quashed by consent was therefore held to be not maintainable.
• At the same time, the High Court protected the former developer’s position by expressly keeping open any rights he might have concerning his relationship with the society, the redevelopment or the terminated Development Agreement.
• The Court made it clear that it was expressing no opinion on the merits of those substantive rights.

Six Consent Affidavits Filed by Complainant

• A decisive development was the filing of six consent affidavits dated September 12, 2026, one in each of the six petitions.
• After examining the affidavits, the High Court recorded that the parties had “reconciled their dispute altogether.”
• Justice Jadhav observed that the Court needed to intervene so that the “ignominy of the criminal proceeding” concerning the complainant’s single gala was not carried forward after the underlying dispute had been resolved.
• The Court therefore found it appropriate to allow the petitions.

Section 528 BNSS Carries Forward Inherent Powers Under Section 482 CrPC

The judgment is particularly relevant because it explains the relationship between Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS.

The High Court observed that Section 482 CrPC conferred inherent powers upon High Courts to make orders necessary to:

• Give effect to an order of the Court, prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise secure the ends of justice.
• The Court then noted that under the BNSS, this power has been incorporated in Section 528, which substantially reproduces the language and intent of the former Section 482 CrPC.
• The ruling therefore reinforces that the transition from the CrPC to the BNSS has not removed the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases.

Section 528 BNSS Remains a Discretionary Power

• Justice Jadhav emphasised that the inherent power is not mechanical or automatic.
• The Court observed that High Courts may intervene where proceedings have been instituted with mala fide motives, to harass an accused, or where continuation of proceedings would result in procedural harassment.
• The provision can also enable the Court to terminate FIRs or criminal proceedings where the circumstances justify exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
• Importantly, however, the High Court stated that exercise of powers formerly under Section 482 CrPC and now under Section 528 BNSS remains discretionary and depends upon the facts of each case.

Bombay HC Relies on Supreme Court’s Bhajan Lal Judgment

• The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR 604.
• The Court noted that Bhajan Lal laid down model categories and guidelines identifying circumstances in which FIRs may be quashed.
• Justice Jadhav further observed that the Supreme Court had explained that the inherent power is an acknowledgment of powers already inherent in the High Court rather than the source of some additional jurisdiction.

Even Non-Compoundable Offences May Be Quashed in Appropriate Cases

• The Bombay High Court also reiterated an important distinction between compounding an offence and quashing criminal proceedings through the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
• Referring to the principles discussed in Bhajan Lal, the Court observed that even non-compoundable offences may be quashed where necessary, with the High Court required to consider whether continuation of the prosecution would further or undermine the interests of justice.
• At the same time, the Court specifically cautioned that grave offences such as murder, rape and dacoity ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the parties have reached a settlement, since such offences carry wider societal implications.
• The order therefore does not lay down that every criminal case must be quashed once the parties settle. Rather, the inherent jurisdiction remains dependent upon the nature of the controversy and the interests of justice.

Private Nature of Redevelopment Dispute Considered

• In the present case, the criminal proceedings arose from a dispute connected with a society member’s own gala in a redevelopment project.
• The complainant’s allegations against the petitioners concerned their alleged collusion with the new developer, but the grievance remained confined to the complainant’s premises.
• With the complainant and petitioners having subsequently reconciled their dispute and filed consent affidavits, the High Court concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings was unnecessary.

FIR No. 0456 of 2026 Quashed

• The Bombay High Court ultimately allowed all six writ petitions in terms of their respective prayer clauses.
• The petitions sought issuance of an appropriate writ calling for the records concerning FIR C.R. No. 0456 of 2026 registered with Versova Police Station, Mumbai, and quashing the FIR after examining its legality, validity and propriety.
• The connected petitions contained substantially identical reliefs concerning the same FIR.
• The High Court accordingly recorded:
• “All six Petitions are allowed and disposed.”
• Thus, Mohammed Jasim Bhati and the petitioners in the five connected matters succeeded in having the FIR quashed.
• What Happens to the Former Developer’s Claims?
• The order contains an important qualification concerning the former developer.
• Quashing of the criminal FIR does not adjudicate or extinguish the former developer’s independent civil or contractual rights.

The High Court expressly left open whatever rights the former developer may have regarding:

• his relationship with the co-operative housing society;
• the redevelopment project;
• termination of his Development Agreement; and
• remedies otherwise available to him under law.

Those questions may continue to be litigated in the already pending civil or arbitration proceedings, and the High Court expressly refrained from giving any opinion on their merits.

This distinction is important: the judgment terminates the criminal proceedings arising from the complainant’s individual gala dispute, but it does not determine the broader redevelopment dispute involving the former developer.

Why the Judgment Is Significant

• The ruling has significance under the new criminal procedural regime introduced by the BNSS because it expressly recognises the continuity between Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS.
• The Bombay High Court has confirmed that Section 528 substantially preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to intervene where necessary to prevent abuse of judicial process and secure the ends of justice.
• The judgment also illustrates the distinction between criminal proceedings arising from an essentially private dispute and independent civil or contractual disputes involving third parties. Settlement of the former may justify quashing in an appropriate case, while the latter can remain open for adjudication in their proper forum.

Key Takeaway

The Bombay High Court’s ruling makes clear that Section 528 BNSS carries forward the inherent quashing jurisdiction previously exercised under Section 482 CrPC.

Where a criminal proceeding arises from a private dispute, the parties have fully reconciled, and continuation of the prosecution would no longer advance the interests of justice, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to bring the proceedings to an end. However, settlement is not an automatic ground for quashing every offence.

The nature and gravity of the alleged offence and its impact on society remain material considerations, with serious offences ordinarily standing on a different footing.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 16.09.2026

Bombay HC Quashes Upa-Lokayukta Order Cancelling 1984 Mutation Entry; Holds Recommendatory Powers Cannot Replace Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction

​​​The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has set aside an order of the Upa-Lokayukta, Maharashtra, which had recommended cancellation of a decades-old mutation entry and recovery of possession of agricultural land, holding that the Upa-Lokayukta had exceeded the jurisdiction available under the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971.

Justice Pravin S. Patil, deciding Rajendra s/o Bhagirath Bansile & Ors. v. The Up Lok-Ayukta, Maharashtra State & Anr., Writ Petition No. 5794 of 2013, 2026:BHC-NAG:11956, held that while the Upa-Lokayukta possesses recommendatory jurisdiction, such powers cannot be exercised as a substitute for the statutory powers vested in authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

The Court ultimately restored Mutation Entry No. 97 relating to Survey No. 84/3, Gat No. 216, in favour of the petitioners.

Dispute Over Agricultural Land and Mutation Entry

• The petitioners claimed to be co-owners of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 216, Old Survey No. 84/3, situated at village Pimpalgaon (Chilamkha), Tahsil Deulgaon Raja, District Buldhana.
• According to them, Bhagirath Ramdas Bansile, father of the first two petitioners, had been cultivating and possessing approximately 5.05 hectares of land out of Survey No. 84/3, with his name appearing in the crop statement since 1973-74.
• In March 1989, the land was partitioned between Bhagirath Bansile and his four sons, following which their names were mutated in the revenue records. Petitioners 3 to 5 subsequently purchased 3.05 hectares through a registered sale deed dated 5 February 2009 and their names were also entered in the revenue records.

Complaint Before Upa-Lokayukta Questioned 1984 Revenue Entry

• The controversy began when the second respondent lodged a complaint before the Upa-Lokayukta on 7 August 2009.
• The complaint alleged, among other things, that certain lands had wrongly been reflected as Occupant Class-I instead of Class-II, and that the sale in favour of some of the petitioners had been effected without obtaining the Collector’s permission or depositing the alleged unearned income.
• It was further alleged that Survey No. 84/3 had not been allotted to Bhagirath Bansile during consolidation proceedings in 1984 and that the Consolidation Officer had allegedly extended undue favour by causing the land to be mutated in his name.
• Following the complaint, the Upa-Lokayukta initiated an inquiry and sought reports from revenue officers.

SDO Had Already Ordered Regularisation in 2013

• During the pendency of the Upa-Lokayukta proceedings, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Buldhana, by an order dated 24 May 2013, granted permission for regularisation of the land in the petitioners’ names and forwarded the matter to the Tahsildar, Deulgaon Raja for further action.
• The revenue authorities also placed this development before the Upa-Lokayukta.
• Nevertheless, on 7 August 2013, the Upa-Lokayukta passed the impugned order recommending cancellation of the mutation entries in favour of the petitioners and steps for recovery of possession.
• The petitioners consequently approached the Bombay High Court.

Three-Year Limitation Under Section 8(5)

• One of the central issues before the High Court concerned Section 8(5) of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971.
• The provision distinguishes between a complaint involving a “grievance” and one involving an “allegation.”
• Under Section 8(5), a complaint involving an allegation cannot be investigated if it is made after three years from the date on which the complained-of action is alleged to have taken place. The statutory proviso permitting consideration of sufficient cause applies to the period concerning a “grievance,” rather than providing a similar extension for an allegation beyond the prescribed three-year period.
• The Act defines an “allegation” in relation to a public servant to include assertions involving abuse of position to obtain gain or favour, improper or corrupt motives, corruption or lack of integrity. A “grievance,” on the other hand, concerns a claim of injustice or undue hardship resulting from maladministration.

Complaint Was an “Allegation”, Not Merely a “Grievance”: High Court

• After examining the complaint, the High Court held that it fell within the category of an “allegation.”
• The complaint accused the authorities of extending undue favour to Bhagirath Bansile while effecting the revenue entry. Consequently, the applicable limitation period was three years from the complained-of action.
• The impugned Mutation Entry No. 97 was dated 30 April 1984, whereas the complaint before the Upa-Lokayukta was lodged only on 7 August 2009.
• The High Court therefore found that the complaint was prima facie barred by limitation and held that, in view of the mandate of Section 8(5), the Upa-Lokayukta could not investigate the complaint.

Upa-Lokayukta Has Recommendatory, Not Appellate, Jurisdiction

• The second major issue concerned the nature and extent of the Upa-Lokayukta’s powers.
• The State relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Additional Tahsildar & Anr. v. Urmila G. & Ors., (2023) 20 SCC 642, contending that the Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta exercises recommendatory jurisdiction.
• The High Court accepted the principle that the Upa-Lokayukta can make recommendations to the competent authorities. However, Justice Patil emphasised that a Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta cannot act as an appellate authority over decisions of competent forums created under other statutes.
• Where a statute creates its own appeal or revision mechanism, an aggrieved party must pursue those statutory remedies.
• The Court succinctly observed that “Recommendatory powers cannot take place of statutory powers.”

Upa-Lokayukta Effectively Exercised Land Revenue Powers

• Although the impugned order was styled as a recommendation under Section 12 of the 1971 Act, the High Court examined its substance rather than merely its title.
• The Court found that the Upa-Lokayukta had directed the Collector, Buldhana, to cancel Mutation Entry No. 97, forfeit the land to the Government and initiate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officers.
• According to the High Court, this demonstrated that the Upa-Lokayukta had effectively exercised powers of an appellate authority under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
• The Court consequently held that the order was unsustainable in law because the Upa-Lokayukta had exceeded the limits of its statutory jurisdiction.

Failure to Consider SDO’s Regularisation Order

• The High Court also took note of the fact that the SDO’s 24 May 2013 regularisation order had been brought to the notice of the Upa-Lokayukta before the impugned order was passed.
• Despite this, the Upa-Lokayukta’s order did not consider the regularisation decision, even though the High Court regarded it as a fact capable of materially affecting the decision.
• Thus, apart from the jurisdictional and limitation issues, the Court found that relevant factual and legal aspects had not been appropriately considered.

Bombay High Court Restores Mutation Entry

Allowing the writ petition, the Bombay High Court:

1. quashed and set aside the Upa-Lokayukta’s order dated 7 August 2013 in Case No. ULA/COM/104/2010 (T-15); and
2. directed restoration of Mutation Entry No. 97 concerning Survey No. 84/3, Gat No. 216, Mouza Pimpalgaon Chilamkha, Taluka Deulgaon Raja, District Buldhana, in favour of the petitioners.

The Court made no order as to costs.

Significance of the Judgment

The judgment draws a clear institutional boundary around the powers of the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta. Their statutory role may include investigation and recommendations, but that role cannot be transformed into an appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over authorities exercising powers under separate enactments.

The ruling is also significant on limitation under Section 8(5) of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971. Where a complaint falls within the statutory category of an “allegation,” the High Court’s reasoning confirms the importance of the prescribed three-year period. Accordingly, the case reinforces two distinct safeguards: statutory limitation on the investigation of stale allegations and jurisdictional limits on recommendatory authorities interfering with decisions governed by separate statutory appeal or revision mechanisms.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com