Shivrani Santosh Naikwadi vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16549 Bom

                                                             909 WP 13978 17.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 13978 OF 2017
                    WITH CA 10154/2018 IN WP NO. 13978/2017

       Shivrani w/o Santosh Naikwade,
       Age 32 years, Occ. Household,
       R/o. Near Bhusar Ves, Mali Galli,
       Ausa, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur.                         ...        Petitioner.

       VERSUS.

1)     The State of Maharashtra,
       Through District Collector Latur,
       Tq. & Dist. Latur.

2)     Sub Divisional Magistrate/
       Competent Authority of Land
       Acquisition National Highway
       No. 361, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur.

3)     Rajesh s/o Gurunath Ogle,
       Age Major, Occ. Agriculture,
       R/o. Sitaram Nagar, Latur,
       Tq. & Dist. Latur.                           ...      Respondents.
                                   ...
       Advocate for the Petitioner:Mr.S.V. Gundre h/f Dr.Pansambal Supriya L.
                A.G.P. for the Respondents/State : Mrs. D.S. Jape.
              Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. R.B. Bhosle.

                              CORAM         : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

                              DATE          : 30.11.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. At the request of

both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner had raised an objection before the Land Acquisition

Officer-respondent No. 2 claiming a right and share in the amount of

compensation determined under the National Highways Act, 1956

909 WP 13978 17.odt (hereinafter 'the Act'). By the impugned order the Land Acquisition Officer

rejected the application and disbursed the amount of compensation to the

respondent No. 3.

3. The learned advocate Mr. Gundre submits that the petitioner

approached this Court and by the order dated 05.12.2017 an ad interim

relief was granted. He states that pursuant to the order under challenge an

amount of Rs. 60,93,360/- was transferred by R.T.G.S. in the account of the

respondent No. 3 with Canara Bank on 28.11.2017. Out of that he has

already withdrawn an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- on 30.11.2017. He

submits that individual amount which was already lying to his credit in the

account with the Bank of Rs. 2,86,547/-together with the remaining amount

of compensation has been frozen by the Bank pursuant to the ad interim

relief granted by this Court.

4. After hearing the learned advocates of both the sides it transpires that

instead of applying the provisions of Section 3-H(4) of the Act in letters and

spirit, in spite of there being a dispute existing between petitioner and the

respondent No. 3 and in spite of the fact that the respondent No. 2-Special

Land Acquisition Officer was alive to the fact that the parties were already

before a Civil Court wherein a Regular Civil Suit No. 566/2015 was pending,

for the best reasons known to him he has indulged in and undertaken an

investigation, as if he was competent to do so under that provision to decide

the rights between the parties when he was legally obliged to make

909 WP 13978 17.odt reference to the Principal Court of Original civil jurisdiction. Suffice for the

purpose to refer to and rely upon the decision of this Court in the matter of

Ashok Ramling More Vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition No.

1473/2016 decided on 13.07.2016 and Rizwana Begum w/o Sharif Pathan

and others Vs. The Union of India and others in Writ Petition No.

11504/2017 decided on 20.09.2017.

5. In view of the above state of affairs, the impugned order is clearly

de hors the provisions of the Act rather passed in violation of the mandate of

the provision of Section 3-H(4) of the Act and therefore grossly illegal and

deserves to be set aside.

6. As has been admitted by the respondent No. 3 in his Civil Application,

he has already withdrawn an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- out of the total

compensation of Rs. 60,93,360/-. Needless to state that since the dispute is

pending before a Civil Court, this amount which he has already withdrawn

as also whatever is in balance in his account towards the compensation

would be subject to the out come of the suit and the Civil Court would

decide the issue. However, a direction will have to be given to the

respondent No. 2-Special Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference as is

contemplated under Section 3-H(4) of the Act.

7. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set

aside. The respondent No. 2-Special Land Acquisition Officer shall now

make a reference under Section 3-H(4) of the Act to the Court of Principal

909 WP 13978 17.odt Court of original civil jurisdiction. Apportionment of the amount of

compensation assessed by him shall be subject to the out come of the suit.

8. The respondent No. 3 shall furnish an undertaking before the Civil

Court that in case so ordered in future by the Civil Court he would remit

back the amount or a portion thereof depending upon the decision of the

suit and the reference.

9. The remaining amount of compensation which is lying in his account

with the Bank shall remain freezed. However, he shall be permitted to

operate the account in respect of any other sum standing in his account.

10. The Rule is made absolute in above terms.

11. The Civil Application is disposed of.

12. Suit and the Reference shall stand expedited.

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) mkd/-