[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Gorakh Shankar Mali And Others vs The Project Director National Highway ... on 22 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:3045
1 of 5 975-WP.8670.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
975 WRIT PETITION NO. 8670 OF 2017
GORAKH SHANKAR MALI AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY
AURANGABAD AND OTHERS
...
Mr. H. D. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. D. P. Madkar h/f. Mr. Deepak S. Manorkar, Advocate for Respondent
No.1.
Mr. Uttam Bajirao Bondar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Laxmikant C. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Ramesh V. Naiknavare, Advocate for Respondent Nos.6 and 7.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
learned Advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for
final hearing.
2. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
3. By the present petition, the Petitioners are assailing the order
dated 21.06.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Osmanabad in LAR No.435 of 2016, whereby the application
filed by Respondent No.3 below Exhibit-26 for impleadment came to be
allowed.
Tauseef
2 of 5 975-WP.8670.2017
4. Respondent No.3 filed an application seeking impleadment in
LAR No.435 of 2016 contending that he has a share in the property.
5. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that
Respondent No.3 has already instituted a civil suit for partition and
separate possession, which is pending. It is further submitted that
pursuant to partition between the brothers, other property was allotted
to Respondent No.3 and he has already received compensation in
respect of the property so acquired. As regards the property belonging
to the Petitioners, Respondent No.3 has no share therein and the
application has been filed only with a view to obstruct disbursement of
the compensation.
6. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners relied upon the law laid
down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shri Dattaram Deu
Desai & Ors. Vs. Shri Nirakar Devasthan of Palolem through its
Attorney & Ors., reported in 2000 (2) Bom. C.R. 100, as well as the
decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. Gulam Hussain Muhammad
Munir Nalkhande & Ors., reported in 2016 (3) All M.R. 788, to contend
that the land belonging to the Petitioners was acquired and that
Respondent No.3 has no share in the said property.
7. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the Petitioners has
invited my attention to the award and submitted that during the
Tauseef
3 of 5 975-WP.8670.2017
acquisition proceedings, objections were invited; however, none were
raised by Respondent No.3. It was, therefore, contended that only the
names of the Petitioners and Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 were reflected
in the award and that Respondent No.3 has no share in the property.
8. This Court, in Vithabai Deoraoji Wahane Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2007 (Supp.) Bom. C.R. 901, has
considered a similar issue and recorded the findings in paragraphs 19
and 20, which read as under:-
"19. The perusal of judgment of larger Bench of the Honble
Apex Court mentioned above clearly shows that a person who was
not owner of land, who was not party to land acquisition
proceedings and who did not seek reference under section 18 of
Land Acquisition Act was permitted to be added as party in
proceedings under section 18 because of the attachment of
compensation amount payable to one of the co-sharers by him.
The Honble Apex Court has clearly observed that interest of such
person in amount of compensation need not exist as it is amount
of compensation. It is sufficient that his rights are adversely
affected by payment of such amount of compensation to its
claimant or otherwise. It has been, therefore, held that interest in
amount is sufficient and there is no restriction on the ground
which can be raised by a person affected by objection raised in
such reference proceedings to protect his interest.
20. In these circumstances, I find that because of claim made
by the petitioner as real sister of respondent No. 4 and submission
of respondent No. 4 that she relinquished her share on 14-6-1984
by executing relinquishment deed and her further submission that
out of natural love and affection, he paid her amount of
Rs.1,12,500/- as mentioned in Guarantee deed/Bond dated 24-
12-1999, the petitioner has established that she is person
interested. It is not necessary for this Court to record any finding
about the correctness or otherwise of the stand about payment or
its receipt or execution of relinquishment deed at this stage. The
controversy can be resolved by trial Court while deciding
reference on merits."
Tauseef
4 of 5 975-WP.8670.2017
9. I find that the learned Appellate Court has considered all the
aspects while allowing the application below Exhibit-26.
10. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties
and upon perusal of the record placed before me, it appears that
Respondent No.3 filed an application contending that land
admeasuring 66 R was acquired and that he is entitled to receive
compensation in respect thereof. He had raised an objection before the
Land Acquisition Officer; however, the said objection was not referred.
In other similar cases, objections raised by the concerned persons were
referred. Since the dispute came to be referred under Section 3H(4) of
the National Highways Act, 1956, the learned Trial Court allowed the
application.
11. Considering the fact that Respondent No.3 has contended in
his application that he is a necessary party to the proceedings, it is for
the Reference Court to decide, on its own merits, whether Respondent
No.3 is entitled to any share in the property. At this stage, since
Respondent No.3 has asserted a claim of interest in the property, the
application for impleadment came to be allowed.
12. In view of that, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
order dated 21.06.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge,
Tauseef
5 of 5 975-WP.8670.2017
Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR No.435 of 2016. It is clarified that
this Court has not recorded any finding regarding the entitlement of
any of the parties and the same shall be decided by the concerned
Court on its own merits. The present observations are confined only to
the issue of impleadment.
13. Hence, I pass the following order:-
(i) The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ii) Rule is discharged.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
