Hajera Begum Mohd Shafiyoddin vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1666 Bom

                                                                  WP8030-16.odt
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 8380 2016

Hajera Begum w/o Mohd. Shafiyoddin, ... Petitioner  
Age 60 years, Occu: Household,
R.o Lohar Lane, Juna Bazzar, Beed,
Taluka and Dist. Beed

        VERSUS

1.  The State of Maharashtra
    Through its Secretary
    Revenue and Forest Department,
    Mantralaya, Mumbai

2.      The Collector,  Beed.

3.      The Deputy Collector, Beed @
        The Land Acquisition officer, 
        Beed.

4.      Sayed Ismile s/o Sayyed Hamid,
        Age 61 years, Occu: Business,
        R/o Kazi Lane, Momin Mohalla, 
        Georai, Dist. Beed.

5.      Muzzafar s/i Sayyed Himid
        Age 52 years, Occu: BUsiness
        R/o As above

6.      Sayyed  Mustakhim  s/o Sayyed 
        Hamid, Age 43 years, Occu: 
        Business, R/o  As above

7.      Sayyed Jaffar s/o Sayyed Hamid,
        Age 56 years, Occu: Business,
        R/o  Kanade lane, Momin 
        Mohalla, Georai, Dist. Beed
         
8.      Sayed Mujallim s/o Sayyed Hamid
        Age 48 years, Occu: Business,
        R/o As above


                                                                                   1/4

     ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2017             ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2017 00:59:05 :::
                                                                       WP8030-16.odt
9.      Sahara Begum w/o Abdul Salim 
        Taimore, Age 50 years, Occu: 
        Household, R/o Kadarpura, 
        Barshi Naka,  Beed.

10. Najera Begum w/o Abdul Rahim                     ... Respondents
    Taimore, age 45 years,Occu: 
    Household,  R/o as above.

Mr. Amol S. Gandhi and  Mr.Nikhil Tungar, Advocates for 
Petitioner 
Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, Addl.GP for Respondents State  
Mr. Mayur V. Salunke wih Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocates 
for Respondent Nos. 4 to 8
Mr. G. K. Naik-Thigale, Advocate for respondents 9 & 10 

                                    CORAM   :  R. M. BORDE & 
                                                K. L. WADANE, JJ.
                                     DATE   :   12th April, 2017

JUDGMENT (Per R. M. Borde, J.):                        

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the

consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal.

2. Petitioner is daughter and respondent Nos. 4 to

8 are sons of deceased Sayyed Hamid whereas,

respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are sisters of the petitioner.

The petitioner claims her entitlement in respect of

property left behind by Sayyed Hamid. The property

originally belonging to deceased Sayyed Hamid, father

of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 10 has been

acquired for construction of National Highway. The

petitioner tendered an application to the competent

WP8030-16.odt authority claiming apportionment of amount determined

under the Award. The petitioner requested the competent

authority to refer the matter for decision of the

Principal Civil Court of the original jurisdiction of

the District, however the said application has been

rejected by the competent authority.

3. It is not a matter of dispute that the

petitioner has lodged a suit against the respondents

herein claiming her entitlement in respect of the

property left behind by deceased Sayyed Hamid. The suit

is stated to be pending. In the circumstances, in view

of provisions of section 3-H(4) of the National

Highways Act, 1956, it was mandatory for the competent

authority to refer the matter for determination to the

District Court. The order passed by the competent

authority is erroneous and as such, deserves to be

set aside and the same is accordingly set aside.

4. The competent authority is directed to refer the

application tendered by the petitioner seeking

apportionment of the amount of compensation for

decision of the Principal Civil Court of Original

Jurisdiction i.e. the District Court, Beed.

WP8030-16.odt

5. With the directions as above, writ petition is

disposed of. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In

the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be

no order as to costs.

(K. L. WADANE, J.)                   (R. M. BORDE, J. ) 


JPC