Bombay High Court
Jyotiram Dattoba Salunkhe vs The Competent Authority And Deputy ... on 2 January, 2025
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
Digitally signed
by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT
2025:BHC-AS:55-DB
GOPAL (10) JUDGMENT WP-8369.23.DOCX
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date:
2025.01.03
10:38:44 +0530
lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8369 OF 2023
Jyotiram Dattoba Salunkhe ]
Aged about : 48 years ]
Occ : Agriculturist, ]
R/at : At Village Bhavaninagar ]
(Rajuri), Tal. Phaltan, Dist. Satara ].....Petitioner.
Versus
1] The Competent Authority ]
and Deputy Collector ]
(Land Acquisition) No.16, Satara ]
]
2] The Project Manager (Tech), ]
National Highway Authority of India, ]
Pune. ]
Off : S. No.134/1, BAIF Bhavan ]
Campus, Dr. Manibhai Desai Nagar, ]
Warje, Pune 411 058 ]
]
3] The Deputy Engineer, ]
P.W. Sub-Division, Phaltan. ]
]
4] The State of Maharashtra ]
Through its Chief Secretary, ]
Ministry of Public Works, ]
Government of Maharashtra, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai ].....Respondents
______________________________________________________
Mr. Milind Deshmukh, for the Petitioner.
Ms S R Crasto, AGP for the Respondents - State.
______________________________________________________
Page 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2025 09:54:56 :::
(10) JUDGMENT WP-8369.23.DOCX
CORAM M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED: 02 January 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the Petitioner
and Ms. Crasto, the learned AGP for the Respondents - State.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request
of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs in this
Petition: -
a. That this Hon'ble Court may be to quash and/or set aside
the impugned letter dated 05.01.2023 bearing no.
BHARARAPRA/PLAE-PUNE/RA.M.KRA. 965/2023/56 issued by
Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1 in the interest of justice.
b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and/or set
aside the Re-Valuation Report prepared on the basis of
Panchanama dated 07.11.2022 done by Respondent in the
interest of justice;
c. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that, the
valuation assessed as per the Final Award and Compensation
amount of Rs. 36,54,534/- fixed and Disbursed to the Petitioner
is legal and proper;
4. The record shows that the Petitioner has already withdrawn
the compensation of Rs. 36,54,534/ in terms of the final award.
After the withdrawal of this amount, the 2nd Respondent issued
the impugned communication dated 05 January 2023 stating that
the valuation of Rs.36,54,534/- and the payment of this amount to
the Petitioner was incorrect. This communication dated 05 January
2023 further states that the correct valuation would be
Rs.16,42,925/-; therefore, the difference would be adjusted against
the compensation payable to the Petitioner for the acquisition of
(10) JUDGMENT WP-8369.23.DOCX
some other land of the Petitioner. The impugned communication
dated 05 January 2023 also refers to a re-valuation report based
on the panchanama dated 07 November 2022.
5. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the Petitioner,
submits that the Petitioner was paid compensation of
Rs.36,54,534/- based on the final award. He submits that the
impugned communication dated 05 January 2023 virtually seeks
to vary the final award under which the Petitioner was already
paid compensation. He submits that such a course of action is
impermissible, and, in any event, such a course of action could not
have been adopted without even minimum compliance with
principles of natural justice and fair play. Accordingly, he submits
that the impugned communication dated 05 January 2023 and the
so-called re-valuation report should be set aside.
6. Ms. Crasto, the learned AGP for the Respondents-State,
submits that the valuation of Rs.36,54,534/--was excessive and
disproportionate. After the error was realised, a re-valuation was
carried out, and the correct compensation payable to the Petitioner
was determined at Rs.16,42,925/--. Therefore, she submits that
the Petitioner cannot insist upon retaining the excess
compensation, and there was no error in the proposal for
adjustment.
7. At this stage, we must note that based upon the impugned
communication dated 05 January 2023, the Petitioner was, by
notice dated 14 May 2024, called upon to refund/transfer the
alleged excess compensation amount to the State. However, by
further communication dated 15 May 2024, the State withdrew
this communication dated 14 May 2024.
(10) JUDGMENT WP-8369.23.DOCX
8. At this stage, we do not propose to discuss the correctness of
the conclusions reflected in the impugned communication dated 05
January 2023 or the re-valuation report on which such conclusions
are purported to be based. However, we are satisfied that such
conclusions could not have been reached without following due
process of law, which would include minimum compliance with
principles of natural justice and fair play. The impugned
communication, which visits the Petitioners with civil and
pecuniary consequences, could not have been issued without
minimum compliance with principles of natural justice and fair
play.
9. The Petitioner has already been paid the compensation in
terms of the final award. If there was any proposal to vary this
compensation amount, then the minimum expected was a proper
notice to the Petitioner followed by an opportunity for a hearing.
The Petitioner could have raised all permissible pleas, including the
plea of want of jurisdiction to vary such a finalised award. In such
matters, the Writ Court is mainly concerned with the decision-
making process, not just the final decision. In the present matter,
the decision-making process is found to be wanting for failing to
comply with the principles of natural justice.
10. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned communication
dated 05 January 2023 and the re-valuation report based on which
the impugned communication dated 05 January 2023 came to be
issued. But we grant the Respondents-State a liberty to make such
order and take further steps as may be available under the law. In
doing so, the Respondents-State will have to issue proper notice to
the Petitioner and grant the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing if
any adverse action is proposed against the Petitioner.
(10) JUDGMENT WP-8369.23.DOCX
11. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned communication
dated 05 January 2023 and the re-valuation report on which it is
based but grant the Respondent-State the liberty to proceed in
accordance with the law as indicated above.
12. All contentions of all parties on merits are, however, left
open.
13. The rule is made absolute in the above terms without any
cost orders.
14. All concerned parties are to act upon the authenticated copy
of this order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
