AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.
By this Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has putforth prayer clause “B” as follows:
“B. The Writ Petition be allowed with cost. The Impugned Order Dated 11/09/2019, passed by the S. D. O. in Case No. 2019 /Bhusampadan / Mahamarg NH-361, may kindly be quashed and set aside.
And the application filed by the petitioner may be allowed and S.D.O. Kalmnuri may be directed to send the dispute and disputed amount of compensation in respect of Gut No. 445, situated at Waranga Fata to the Civil Court as per Sec. 3 (H) (4) of the National Highway Act, 1956”
It appears from the record that land Gut No.445 admeasuring 1 Hectare 26 Are, situated at Varanga Fata, Taluka-Kalamnuri, District – Hingoli (Old Survey No. 104/2) was acquired for Upper Painganga Project. After the acquisition, 10 R land remained. The Petitioners claim to have constructed on 1025 square meter area of the remaining 10 Are land. National Highway No. 361 was constructed, in which 10 Are area was affected. Compensation amount in respect of the said area was deposited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Petitioner submitted objection before Respondent No.1 opposing disbursal of the amount of compensation to Respondent No.4.
Respondent No.1, after hearing the Petitioners, Respondent No.4 and the concerned, gave a decision thereby rejecting the objection of the Petitioner and directing that compensation be paid to Respondent No.4. It is further directed that, both the parties are intimated that possession of the said property would be taken under section 3 E of the National Highways Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has approached this Court.
Heard Mr. P. V. Mandlik, earned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Sarvdnya, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1, Mr. Latange, learned Advocate for Respondent No.4 and learned Advocate for Respondent No.3. Perused the documents placed on record, including the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondents.
By order dated 22nd December, 2025, this Court directed the Competent Authority to deposit the amount of compensation in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank and to abide by the orders those may be passed in this Writ Petition.
Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, Respondent No.1 deposited an amount of Rs.80,24,938/- in LAR No. 2 of 2024, on 21st February, 2024, as the LAR was already pending.
Copy of the status report of the LAR shows that the LAR is registered on 8th February, 2024, at the instance of Respondent No.1 and the Petitioners and Respondent No.4 are party Respondents therein.
Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, in similar fact situation, in Writ Petition No.5788 of 2022, has held as follows :
“13.The provisions of the NHA are pretty clear. Section 3H deals with depositing and paying the compensation amount where land is acquired for highway purposes under the NHA. Section 3H (3) provides that several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-Section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who, in its opinion, are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. Section 3H (4) provides that if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part there or any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.
14.There were several decisions of this Court interpreting the above provisions. These decisions hold that the provisions of sub-sections 3 and 4 of Section 3h of NHA must be harmoniously construed. Thus, if there is any dispute regarding apportionment of compensation, the competent authority has no right, authority or jurisdiction to decide on such apportionment dispute and proceed to disburse the compensation amount in favour of any one of the disputing parties. Such a dispute must be essentially referred to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the acquired land may be situated.”
In the light of the above observations, the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1, thereby deciding entitlement of Respondent No.4 to the compensation, cannot be sustained.
At this stage, learned Advocate for Respondent No.4 submits that the Petitioners have already withdrawn the amount of their share and now only the amount of the share of Respondent No.4 is remaining and the same is deposited before the Court where the LAR is pending. It is, therefore, requested that the Petitioners be directed to deposit the amount withdrawn by them.
Learned Senior Advocate in reply would submit that the amount of compensation withdrawn by the Petitioners was for a different piece of land and it does not have any bearing on the subject compensation.
The said point be agitated before the Court before which the LAR is pending.
In view of the above, following order is passed:
ORDER
a. The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
b. Impugned order dated 11th September, 2019 passed by Respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside.
c. The matter is referred to the Civil Court before which LAR No. 65 of 2025 is pending with a direction to decide entitlement of Respondent No.4 to the amount of compensation.
d. The Civil Court to decide LAR No. 65 of 2025 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
e. The parties shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of the LAR No. 65 of 2025.
f. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
g. Pending Civil Applications stand disposed of.