Allowed

Ashok Ramling More v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC13 Jul 2016WP/1473/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that disputes regarding entitlement to compensation based on title fall under Section 3-H(4) and must be referred to the Civil Court, quashing the Competent Authority's refusal to refer the matter.

What did the court decide?

Order passed by Competent Authority refusing to refer title dispute to Civil Court quashed and set aside; matter directed to be referred to Principal Civil Court.

Ashok Ramling More Vs the Union of India and Others — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

15-wp1473-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1473 OF 2016

¶4

Ashok Ramling More,... Petitioner.
Age 56 years,
Occu:Business & Agriculture
R/o Yadashi,
Taluka and Dsitrict Osmanabad.

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, The Minsitry of Road Transport and Highway, New Delhi

¶7

2. The Competent Authority, National Highway No.211, @ The Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Medium Project No.2, Osmanabad.

¶8

3. Dilip Dagdu Ghavar Age 56 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Yedashi, Tq and District Osmanabad.

¶9

4. Sikandar Ismile Bagwan, Age 75 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Yedashi, Tq. and District Osmanabad.

¶10

5. Ashok Maroti Lavte, Age 30 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Yedashi, Tq. and District Osmanabad.

¶11

WITH

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 1561 OF 2016

¶13

1. Shantabai w/o Ashok More, Age 47 years, Occu:Business & Agriculture R/o Yadashi,

¶14

... Petitioner.

¶15

1/7

¶16

15-wp1473-16.odt

¶17

Taluka and Dsitrict Osmanabad.

¶18

2. Sunita w/o pradip More, Age 38 years, Occu:Business & Agriculture R/o Yadashi,

¶19

Taluka and Dsitrict Osmanabad.

¶20

3. Ashok Ramling More Age 56 years, Occu:Business & Agriculture R/o Yadashi, Taluka and Dsitrict Osmanabad.

¶21

VERSUS

¶22

1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, The Minsitry of Road Transport and Highway, New Delhi

¶23

2. The Competent Authority, National Highway No.211, @ The Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Medium Project No.2, Osmanabad.

¶24

3.Navnath Ambadas Lakde
Age Age 56 years,
Occu: Agriculture & Medical
Practice, R/o Yedashi,
Tq and District Osmanabad.

¶25

Shri Milind Patil, Advocate for the petitioner,
Shri S. B. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2,
Shri S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for respondents 3 &
4

¶26

CORAM: R. M. BORDE &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
 DATE:13th July, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT:(Per Borde, J.)

¶28

2/7

¶29

15-wp1473-16.odt

¶30

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶31

2. By consent of the parties, taken up for final
hearing.

¶32

3. The petitioners are objecting to the orders
passed by the Competent Authority/The Deputy
collector, Land Acquisition, Medium Project No.2,
Osmanabad, refusing to refer the dispute raised by the
petitioners in respect of disbursement of amount of
compensation to the Civil Court.

¶33

4. Perused the orders passed by the Competent
Authority and heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties.

¶34

5. On perusal of the application tendered by the
petitioners as well as on consideration of the
orders, we are of the considered view that the dispute
raised by the petitioners in the matter cannot be
dealt with by the Competent Authority, exercising
jurisdiction under section 3-H (3) of the National
Highways Act, 1956 and the dispute raised falls within
the purview of Section 3-H(4) of the Act.

¶35

6. Section 3-H(4) of the Act prescribes that if

¶36

3/7

¶37

15-wp1473-16.odt

¶38

any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the

¶39

amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom
the same or any part thereof is payable, the
competent authority shall refer the dispute to the
decision of the principal civil Court of original
jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction

¶40

the land is situated. In the instant matter, on
perusal of the objection, it prima facie appears that
the dispute raised by the petitioners is in respect of
"any person to whom the same or any part thereof is
payable". Since, the dispute raised in the matter is
in respect of entitlement of the petitioners to claim
the amount or part of the amount determined by the
competent authority as compensation payable for the
acquired property, there is no option available to the
competent authority to deal with the dispute but to
refer the same for decision of the principal civil
Court of the original jurisdiction.

¶41

7. It does appear that the competent authority has
dealt with the objections and expressed opinion as
regards merits of the claim raised by the petitioners.

¶42

It prima facie appears that the dispute raised does
not come within the ambit of section 3-H (3) of the

¶43

4/7

¶44

15-wp1473-16.odt

¶45

National Highways Act, 1956. In a case, where

¶46

several persons claim to be interested in the amount
deposited under sub-section (1) of section 3-H, the
competent authority shall determine the persons who

¶47

in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount
payable to each of them. In the instant matter, the
dispute is not as regards persons or several persons
who claim to be interested in the amount deposited
under sub-section (1) of section 3-H of the Act. The
dispute raised is in respect of entitlement of the
petitioners to receive the amount or part of the
amount. The petitioners claim their entitlement on
the basis of title derived by them and since the
question is raised as regards the title of the
petitioners qua the acquired property, we are of the
opinion that it is only the Principal Civil Court of
the original jurisdiction which would be competent
to deal with the issue and pronounce the judgment.

¶48

8. In the facts of the case, the order passed by
the competent authority, according to us, is in excess
of the jurisdiction vested in the competent authority
and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside and
accordingly it is quashed and set aside.

¶49

5/7

¶50

15-wp1473-16.odt

¶51

9. The objections raised by the petitioners in

¶52

both the matters together with the amount determined
by the competent authority shall be forwarded to the

¶53

Principal Civil Court of the original jurisdiction of
District Osmanabad. The competent authority shall
forward the objections together with amount within a
period of 15 days from today.

¶54

10. The Court dealing with the objections shall
decide the dispute after recording evidence of the
parties as expeditiously as possible and preferably
within a period of one year from the date of receipt
of record and proceedings.

¶55

11. It is informed that the first appeal concerning

¶56

the title of the petitioners bearing Regular Civil
Appeal No. 159 of 2014 is pending in the Court of
District Judge, Osmanabad. The District Judge,
Osmanabad is directed to decide the appeal as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a
period of six months from today. The parties
undertakes to cooperate for early disposal of the
appeal.

¶57

12. The application for disbursement of the amount

¶58

6/7

¶59

15-wp1473-16.odt deposited by the competent authority, that would be presented by the respondents or the petitioners, shall be dealt with and appropriate orders shall be passed

¶60

by the Court dealing with the reference as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a
period of three months from the date of tender of the
application.

¶61

13. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall

¶62

be no order as to costs.

¶63

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶64

JPC

¶65

7/7

Ashok Ramling More v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Ramling More v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navnath Bhagawan Dahiwal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dinkar Rangnath Pandarkar and Others Vs the State Election Commission Maharashtra State through the Chief Election Officer and Others

Dinkar Rangnath Pandarkar and Others Vs the State Election Commission Maharashtra State through the Chief Election Officer and Others

Shantabai Ashok More and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Girish Balwantrao Pakalwad U/G Father Balwantrao Shankarrao Pakalwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mayuri Chandrakant Kaletwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others