'Speculative Litigation': Bombay High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Exemplary Costs For Ownership Claim On Land Acquired In 1947

A division bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain remarked, “Based upon utterly contradictory pleadings regarding the status of acquisition and possession and showing scant regard to the Court, Court procedures and the truth, this petition has been filed to see if some profits could be made or at least the litigation pot is kept boiling for ulterior commercial purposes. There is no explanation worth the name for the extraordinary delay of 77 years in instituting this petition. Several averments are made without any proper verification or affidavits. The entire attempt is to indulge in speculation and see if some advantage is to be gained from the inordinate delay of 77 years and the possibility of old records not being readily available with the Government and the railways. We are satisfied that such kind of speculative litigation launched without any sense of responsibility and with the firm faith that perjury laws are seldom enforced, ought not to be encouraged. Instead such speculative litigation must be nipped in the bud.”

The two petitioners claimed that they purchased a property in Maval Taluka, Pune through a sale deed in 1993. However, the record showed that the subject property was already acquired for railway purposes in 1947-48.

The Court noted petitioners initially sought several reliefs regarding mutations in survey records. Subsequently, by way of an Interim Application, the petitioners sought to challenge the land acquisition proceedings of 1947 for railways.

The Court remarked that while the foundational relief in the petition was a challenge to 1947-48 awards, it was drafted in a way to make it appear that the disputes were live by several references to mutation proceedings and changes in survey record.

It observed that there was no explanation of the extraordinary delay of 77 years while instituting the petition in December 2022. It did not accept the petitioner's submissions that they were unaware of the acquisition proceedings since they were in peaceful possession of the lands purchased in 1993.

It said “The 1947-48 notifications about which no dispute is raised were published in gazettes and local papers. The petitioners who came to the scene only in 1993 cannot complain about lack of knowledge and institute and file a petition based upon such alleged lack of knowledge in 2024. Apart from the falsity, unexplained and inordinate delay and laches are sufficient reasons to dismiss this petition with exemplary costs.”

The Court commented that the petitioner tried to 'take chances with the Court process', for possibly speculative purposes or securing some additional compensation by taking undue advantage of their delay and banking on the loss of proper records.

It further noted that the petitioner annexed the award along with the interim application, but claimed that as the award was not signed, it was only a draft ward no final award was declared. The petitioners argued that as the land was never acquired and since the railways did not use the land, the acquisition lapsed. However, noting that there was no material for the petitioners' contentions, the Court reiterated that the petition was nothing but a dishonest attempt to take chances.

Further noting that valuable judicial time was consumed by the matter, the Court remarked “Almost two hours of valuable judicial time was taken up by this matter given the pleadings, documents and arguments. [This is excluding the time consumed on the previous dates]…There was not the slightest apprehension of the consequences of making false and contradictory claims or statements. There were no qualms for consuming valuable judicial time in challenging an acquisition after an inordinate delay of 77 years. The petitioners exuded confidence that they had nothing much to lose by embarking upon such a misadventure, but there could be some chance to make profits should the venture succeed. This kind of attitude and litigations are at the cost of genuine litigation that calls for the judicial attention.”

With these observations, the Court dismissed the petition while imposing Rs. 2 lakh on petitioners, to be paid to Sassoon Hospital and B. J. Medical College, Government Hospital at Pune.

Case title: Satish Poptlal Shah & Anr vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (Interim Application No. 13171 Of 2024 In Writ Petition No. 676 Of 2023)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 77