Manisha Rajkumar Mudgade And ... vs Ramkishan Pandharinath Sawant ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7245 Bom

                                      .. 1 ..

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    927 WRIT PETITION NO.14089 OF 2019

            MANISHA RAJKUMAR MUDGADE AND ANOTHER
                                  VERSUS
           RAMKISHAN PANDHARINATH SAWANT AND OTHERS
                                      ...
             Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh
               Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.V. Natu
               Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. S.S. Deve
                                      ...
                                    CORAM :         MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                                     SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

                                    DATE        :   27-07-2022
PER COURT :

1.                We have heard both the sides finally.

2. The only issue, which according to us is not res integra

arises in this petition i.e. as to what powers a Sub Divisional Officer /

the competent authority under Section 3-H (4) of the National

Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter, in short 'Act') has and whether it

extends the jurisdiction to decide the dispute regarding rival claims.

3. Admittedly, a dispute was raised by the petitioners before

the competent authority and by the order which is under challenge in

this writ petition, he has proceeded to decide the dispute in the form

of a Judgment. Pertinently, when admittedly, it was brought to his

notice that the parties were already before the Civil Court in a suit for

partition, still he has proceeded to decide the dispute.

.. 2 ..

4. We need only to point out that the issue has already been

decided by this Court in the matter of Arun Trimbakrao Lokare

Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2017 (6) Mh.L.J. 612. A distinction

in sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 3-H of the Act has been laid

down. It has been pointed out that the only course that is to be

followed by the competent authority is to refer the dispute to the Civil

Court. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is without

jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. The writ petition is allowed.

6. Impugned order is quashed and set aside.

7. The competent authority - respondent no.4 shall now

refer the dispute to the Civil Court as contemplated under Section

3-H (4) of the Act and the decision cited herein above.

8. The amount of compensation shall be treated as a suit

property in the suit which is already pending. The parties may seek

appropriate relief in that suit including claim for disbursement of

amount.

( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )

GGP