Manisha Kundan Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 2057 Bom

Bombay High Court

Manisha Kundan Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 23 January, 2024

Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge

Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge

2024:BHC-AUG:1667-DB
                                                                          60wp827-24

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               60 WRIT PETITION NO. 827 OF 2024

                                     MANISHA KUNDAN PATIL
                                                                         ....Petitioner
                                             VERSUS

                     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
                                     SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                                                   .....Respondent
                                                .....
              Mr. Patil Vinod Prakash, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for the Respondents State
              Mr. S. S. Deve, Advocate for Respondent No.2,
              Mr. S. P. Undre, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

                             CORAM           :    RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
                                                  Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
                             DATE            :    23rd January, 2024
              ORDER:

1. The Petitioner claims to be the daughter of Anita and Suresh.

Suresh is Respondent No.5 in the present Petition. Anita has passed

away. Suresh has already received the share of compensation on

account of land acquisition. The Arbitrator has now delivered the

judgment dated 22.06.2023, by which the compensation amount has

been enhanced. Consequently, Suresh will also be entitled to an

enhanced amount. The original amount has already been withdrawn

by Suresh to the extent of his share. If he takes enhanced amount, the

Petitioner would not get any share, though being a biological daughter

and the property being an ancestral property.

60wp827-24

2. The learned AGP points out that the Petitioner is already

before the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 159 of 2017, wherein she

has sought a share in the compensation flowing from Suresh. Exhibit 5

application has been rejected since the Arbitration proceedings were

pending and also on interim appreciation of the claim of the Petitioner.

3. We find that exercising our Writ jurisdiction under Article

226, when already a civil suit is pending from 2017, would amount to

indulgence. Instead, the civil proceeding can be expedited. So also,

there is no embargo on filing applications for temporary injunction.

4. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the

Petitioner would file an application for temporary injunction in the light

of changed circumstances on account of the order of the learned

Arbitrator.

5. In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off.

6. Needless to State, if the Petitioner moves an application for

temporary injunction, we are confident that the learned Court would

consider the said application on its merit, expeditiously. So also, the

prayer for restraining disbursement of the enhanced amount to Suresh

only, would be considered expeditiously.

 ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )                      ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )


            60wp827-24

JPChavan