Bombay High Court
Vitthal Baburao Harpale And Ors vs Sub Divisional Officer Haveli Pune Sub ... on 2 January, 2025
Author: M.S.Sonak
Bench: M.S.Sonak
2025:BHC-AS:94-DB Vitthal Baburao harpale & Ors v Sub-Divisional
Officer, Haveli & Ors
14-aswp-1677-2024(F).docx
Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1677 OF 2024
1. Vitthal Baburao Harpale,
Age: 69 years Adult,
Occ.: Agriculture,
residing new power house
Phursungi, Taluka - Haveli,
District: Pune.
2. Yamuna Vitthal Harpale
Age 62 years,
3. Sandeep Vitthal Harpale
Age 45 years Occ.: Agriculture
AMOL residing at Survey No.180,
PREMNATH
JADHAV behind new power house
Digitally signed by
AMOL PREMNATH
Phursungi, Taluka - Haveli,
JADHAV
Date: 2025.01.03 District: Pune.
15:04:03 +0530
(Through their Constituted Attorney
Vitthal Baburao Harpale) ...Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sub-Divisional Officer, Haveli,
Pune Sub-division, having its
office at 7, Nilgiri Bungalow,
Behind Alpabachat Bhavan,
Pune 400 001.
2. Deputy Superintendent, Land Record
Haveli, having its office at
New Administrative Building,
2nd floor, Opp. Vidhan Bhavan
Pune 411 001.
Page 1 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2025 09:54:57 :::
Vitthal Baburao harpale & Ors v Sub-Divisional
Officer, Haveli & Ors
14-aswp-1677-2024(F).docx
3. Deputy Chief Engineer
Central Railway
Central Railway (Nirman), Pune,
having its office at RB Mill Road,
Near Pune Railway Station,
Pune 411 001.
4. Harishchandra Baburao Harpale
Age: Adult, Occ.: Not known.
5. Mandakini Harishchandra Harpale
Age: Adult, Occ.: Not known.
6. Dada Harishchandra Harpale
Age: Adult, Occ.: Not known.
Sr.Nos4, 5, 6 having address at
Behind New English School, Village
Phursungi, Haveli, Pune 412 308.
7. Lilavati Vasant Harpale
Age: Adult, Occ.: Not known.
8. Vikas Vasant Harpale
Age: Adult, Occ.: Not known.
9. Vijay Vasant Harpale
Age: Adult, Occ.: Not known.
10. Lata Vasant Harpale
Age: Adult, Occ.: Not known.
Sr. Nos.7 to 10 having address -
Adjacent to Marathi School, near
Grampanchayat office, Village
Phursungi, Haveli, Pune 412 308.
11. Vinayak Dattatray Harpale
Age: Adult, Occ.: Not known.
12. Dinkar Dattatray Harpale
Age: Adult, Occ.: Not known.
Page 2 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2025 09:54:57 :::
Vitthal Baburao harpale & Ors v Sub-Divisional
Officer, Haveli & Ors
14-aswp-1677-2024(F).docx
13. Vinayak Dattatray Harpale
Age: Adult, Occ.: Not known.
14. Kanta Dattatray Harpale
Age: Adult, Occ.: Not known.
15. Laxmi Vinayak Harpale
Age: Adult, Occ.: Not known.
16. Kamal Dinkar Harpale
Age: Adult, Occ.: Not known.
17. Kavita Kanta Harpale
Age: Adult, Occ.: Not known.
Sr. Nos. 11 to 16 having their address-
Behind New English School, Village
Phursungi, Haveli, Pune 412 308.
18. Shivshakti Promoters & Builders
A partnership firm through it's
Partner Umesh Vitthal Harpale
having its address at D-501,
Green Crest Building,
Bhosale Village, Taluka Haveli,
Pune 412 308. ...Respondents
__________________________________________________________
A PPEARANCES -
Mr Akshay Petkar, for the Petitioners.
Mr Akshay Shinde, 'B' panel Counsel, with Ms V R Raje, AGP,
for the Respondent-State.
Mr NP Shimpi, with Mr Vivek Tirbumala, for the Respondent
No. 3-UOI.
Mr SA Sawant, with Mr Abhishek Matkar, for the Respondent
Nos. 4 to 16.
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : M.S.Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED : 02 January 2025
Page 3 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2025 09:54:57 :::
Vitthal Baburao harpale & Ors v Sub-Divisional
Officer, Haveli & Ors
14-aswp-1677-2024(F).docx
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per MS Sonak J):-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the
request of and with the consent of the learned counsel of the
parties.
3. The Petitioners claim to be co-owners along with
Respondents 4 to 16 of the property surveyed under No.
182/2A, Mauje Fursungi, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, which
was the subject matter of acquisition for a railway line. There
is no dispute that the acquired portion measures 36 Are.
4. The Petitioners, relying upon the registered deed of
partition dated 27 December 1993, contend that the
Petitioners were owners of the partitioned portion measuring
9 Are. The Petitioners also accept that Vinayak Dattatray
Harpale and others; Lilavati Vasant Harpale and others and
Harishchandra Baburao Harpale and others are entitled to 9
Ares each as their partitioned share of the acquired property.
5. The Petitioners have pleaded about writing to the Sub-
Divisional Officer (R1) about these shares and the consequent
apportionment of compensation in terms of these shares.
However, by the impugned communication dated 31 March
2022, the Sub-Divisional Officer (R1) has apportioned the
compensation in the following manner: -.
a. Vinayak Dattatray Harpale and others: 10.01 Are.
b. Lilavati Vasant Harpale and others: 9.70 Are.
c. Harishchandra Baburao Harpale and others: 10.35
Are
Vitthal Baburao harpale & Ors v Sub-Divisional
Officer, Haveli & Ors
14-aswp-1677-2024(F).docx
d. Vitthal Baburao Harpale and others (Petitioners): 5.94
Ares.
6. Aggrieved by the above apportionment and the refusal
of the Sub-Divisional Officer (R1) to refer the matter to the
competent authority in terms of Section 76 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (said Act), the
Petitioners have instituted the present Petition.
7. On 19 April 2022, this Court issued notices to the
Respondents and directed that the status quo regarding the
disbursement of the compensation amount must be
maintained until then. On the returnable date, 29 April 2022,
the interim order granted earlier was modified and directed to
continue in the modified form. In terms of this modification,
the status quo was restricted only to the extent of the
compensation corresponding to land measuring 9 Ares
because the Petitioners' claim was restricted to 9 Ares.
8. This Court's order dated 29 April 2022 is transcribed
below for the convenience of reference: -
". The learned AGP shall clarify about the joint
measurement.
2. According to the Petitioners 36R land is acquired.
There are 4 equal shares in the land acquired i.e. each sharer
having 9R land.
3. The learned AGP shall clarify on the said aspect.
4. Interim order passed earlier to continue till next date
to the extent of 9R land.
Vitthal Baburao harpale & Ors v Sub-Divisional
Officer, Haveli & Ors
14-aswp-1677-2024(F).docx
5. The Respondent are entitled to withdraw the amount
for an area excluding 9R land. The amount of compensation to
the extent of 9R land shall not be disbursed to any parties."
9. Mr Akshay Petkar now submits that in terms of the
impugned communication dated 31 March 2022, there is no
dispute about the Petitioners being entitled to compensation
to the extent of 5.94 Ares. However, it is the Petitioner's case
that they are entitled to compensation for 9 Ares. Mr Petkar,
therefore, submits that the real dispute between the parties is
whether each of the four sets of co-owners is entitled to
compensation corresponding to 9 Ares. Mr Petkar submits that
the interim order should be further modified to permit the
Petitioners to withdraw compensation in respect of the
property admeasuring 5.94 Ares, and the other disputes
should be referred to the competent authority in terms of 76
of the said Act read with Section 3(f) and Section 51 of the
said Act.
10. Section 76 of the said Act provides that when the
amount of compensation has been settled, if any dispute
arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof
or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is
payable, the Collector may refer such disputes to the
Authority. Section 3(f) of the said Act defines "Authority" as
the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Authority established under Section 51.
11. The Petitioners contend that the four sets of co-owners
are entitled to compensation for property measuring 9 acres.
The Respondents 4 to 16, however, stand by the
apportionment in the first Respondent's communication dated
31 March 2022. Only this dispute will have to be referred to
Vitthal Baburao harpale & Ors v Sub-Divisional
Officer, Haveli & Ors
14-aswp-1677-2024(F).docx
and decided by the authority constituted under Section 51 of
the said Act.
12. Now that the contours of the dispute are reasonably well
settled and the three sets of Respondents referred to at a, b
and c of paragraph 5 of this order have already withdrawn the
compensation corresponding to 9 Ares, such withdrawal need
not be disturbed. Similarly, even the Petitioners should now be
allowed to withdraw compensation corresponding to 5.94
Ares, and such withdrawals should not be disturbed. The
concerned Respondents must allow the Petitioners to
withdraw compensation corresponding to 5.94 Ares within
two weeks from today.
13. The learned AGP submits that this should be made
subject to the Petitioners entering into an appropriate
agreement so that the acquisition can proceed. On
instructions, Mr Petkar, the petitioners' Counsel, states that the
Petitioners will enter into such an agreement without
prejudice to their dispute regarding the apportionment of
compensation.
14. Accordingly, we direct the concerned Collector or Sub-
Divisional Officer to refer the above dispute of apportionment
to the authority constituted under Section 51 of the said Act
within four weeks from today.
15. The authority constituted under Section 51 of the said
Act should determine whether the Petitioners are entitled to
compensation corresponding to 9 Are and similarly whether
the Respondents are entitled to compensation corresponding
to what has been determined by the Sub-Divisional Officer in
Vitthal Baburao harpale & Ors v Sub-Divisional
Officer, Haveli & Ors
14-aswp-1677-2024(F).docx
his order dated 31 March 2022 or whether even they are
entitled to compensation corresponding only to 9 Are. All
these rival contentions are left open to be determined by the
authority constituted under Section 51 of the said Act.
16. The Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer must refer the
apportionment dispute in the above terms within four weeks
of today. The authority must grant all the parties full
opportunity in support their respective cases. This will include
the opportunity to produce necessary documents, evidence,
etc. The Petitioners are directed to be permitted to withdraw
the compensation corresponding to 5.94 Ares upon executing
the required agreement without prejudice to their case about
apportionment. The payment of the balance amount of
compensation shall ultimately abide by the orders made by
the authority.
17. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without
any cost order. The interim orders, as modified in terms of this
final order, are made absolute.
18. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this
order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M. S. Sonak, J)
