Dismissed

Bhagyashree Satyanarayan Nalge and Others v. the Competent Authority National Highways Authority of India

Bombay HC13 Dec 2021WP/3589/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Division Bench disposed of two clubbed writ petitions concerning disputes over shares of land compensation. The Court held that civil suits filed by the parties are appropriate venues to adjudicate the dispute over compensation shares. Pending writs and applications were dismissed, a status-quo on withdrawals continued, and funds directed to a fixed deposit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions and pending civil applications disposed of; status quo on compensation maintenance; funds directed to fixed deposit for one year.

Bhagyashree Satyanarayan Nalge and Others Vs the Competent… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 WP / 3589 / 2020+

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

9 WRIT PETITION NO.3589 OF 2020

¶4

WITH

¶5

CA/4510/2021 IN WP/3589/2020 WITH CA/4511/2021 IN WP/3589/2020

¶6

BHAGYASHREE SATYANARAYAN NALGE AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶7

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Katneshwarkar P.R. Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 : Mr. Amol N. Patale Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. A.A. Mukhedkar

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 12238 OF 2021

¶11

ANAND PANDURANG PATIL

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶14

Advocate for petitioner : Mr. B.N. Gadegaonkar Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 : Mr. Amol N. Patale Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. A.A. Mukhedkar

¶15

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

¶16

DATE : 13^TH DECEMBER 2021

¶17

PC :

¶18

By an order passed by the learned Administrative Judge of

¶19

this Bench, both these petitions are clubbed, so as to be taken up by this Bench.

¶20

Considering the order that we are passing, we are not required to advert to the entire submissions of the litigating parties.

¶21

2 WP / 3589 / 2020+

¶22

Suffice it to say that the petitioners in these two petitions and the respondents, are into litigation with regard to the shares of the compensation amount. The land has been acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short “ the Act ”). The compensation amount is approximately of Rs. 6 Crore, to be apportioned to the five sharers, comprising of a widowed mother, two married daughters, one son and a widow of the son.

¶23

Shri Katneshwarkar, the learned Advocate relies upon the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 29-06-2017 at Aurangabad in writ petition no. 1949 of 2017 filed by Arun Trimbakrao Lokare versus The State of Maharashtra and others, in which this Court has taken a view that the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction can decide such a dispute, in view of section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

¶24

Section 3-H(4) of the Act clearly mandates that, if there is any dispute as regards the apportionment of the amount of compensation, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. However, the competent authority did not act in accordance with Section 3-H(4) of the Act and permitted the withdrawal of the compensation. Respondents no. 2 to 4 have withdrawn a total amount of Rs. 4 Crore and odd, from the compensation amount of Rs.6 Crore and odd. Before there could be any further withdrawal of the amount, this Court passed an order on

¶25

3 WP / 3589 / 2020+

¶26

04-03-2020, directing that status-quo as existing on the said date, shall be maintained.

¶27

The petitioner in the second petition (WP/12238/2021), namely, Anand Pandurang Patil claims to be the manager of the property and he has also jumped into the fray of the litigation.

¶28

Special Civil Suit no. 49 of 2019 has been preferred by the petitioners in the first petition (WP/3589/2020), namely, Bhagyashree W/o Satyanarayan Nalge, Omsai S/o Satyanarayan Nalge and Vijayalaxmi @ Anuradha W/o Sangram Rane. The petitioner in the second petition, namely, Anand has also preferred Regular Civil Suit no. 146 of 2020. The litigating parties might as well approach the competent Court, for the clubbing of these matters as all these litigants are litigating for a share from the same acquisition proceedings.

¶29

In view of the above, both these petitions are disposed off. The status-quo order granted by this Court on 04-03-2020, shall continue to operate till the decision in the two suits or in the event of any application for withdrawal of amount being filed by any of the parties, which could be adjudicated upon by the learned Civil Court on it’s own merits.

¶30

We are informed that one of the litigating parties, namely, Kamal D/o Marotrao Nalage and others have preferred writ petition no. 2395 of 2021 before this Court, challenging the direction by the trial Court dated 11-01-2021, vide which defendant nos. 1 and 2 in Special

¶31

4 WP / 3589 / 2020+

¶32

Civil Suit no. 49 of 2019 are directed to lead evidence first. The said order has been stayed by this Court. However, the suit has not been stayed considering the specific language used by the learned Single Judge in clause 4 of the order dated 12-02-2021.

¶33

In this backdrop, we would expect the trial Court to decide the said two suits, as expeditiously as possible, on or before 31-12-2022. We make it clear, for it being needless to state that the amount already withdrawn, would be subject to the decision in the said proceedings. The remainder amount, which is disbursed to Kamal Marotrao Nalge and the bank account in which it is deposited, has been frozen by this Court. We direct the concerned bank to invest the said amount in a fixed deposit receipt for an initial period of one year till 31-12-2022, and to be renewed thereafter on the same terms and conditions along with accrued interest, subject to the orders by the competent Court dealing with the said suits.

¶34

10. Both petitions are disposed off.

¶35

Pending civil applications would not survive and stand disposed off.

¶36

[S.G. MEHARE, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]

¶37

arp/

Bhagyashree Satyanarayan Nalge and Others v. the Competent Authority National Highways Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagyashree Satyanarayan Nalge and Others v. the Competent Authority National Highways Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amerbhai Abdul Nirkhi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manohar Pandurang Wakale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amol Babasaheb Naikwadi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sunilkumar Sukhdeo Ahire Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhagyashree Satyanarayan Nalge and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kanchan Ravindra Murkute Vs Ravindra Shamrao Murkute