Bhadekari Kalyankari 126 Railway Line Station Road Kadadi Chawl Sanstha and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Chief Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bhadekari Kalyankari 126 Railway Line Station Road Kadadi Chawl Sanstha and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Chief Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim restraint: the Land Acquisition Officer may make his award but shall not disburse any amount to any party for at least 4 weeks from clear intimation of the making of the award (with a copy) to the petitioner's association; parties aggrieved by the award are at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings; rival claims left to the LAO in the first instance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is premature, being founded only on an apprehension that the Land Acquisition Officer may apportion the entire compensation in favour of the landlords (respondent nos. 6 and 7) when no award has yet been passed. +2 more

Court's answer

The petition is premature: it is based only on an apprehension that the Land Acquisition Officer might not follow the law, no award having yet been passed.

Ratio / Principle

The Land Acquisition Officer may proceed to make his award, but shall not disburse any amount to any party for at least 4 weeks from the date of clear intimation of the making of the award (along with a copy of the award) to the petitioner's association.

Key takeaways

Any party aggrieved by the award would be at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings in connection with such award.ratio¶¶20
The Court has not examined the claims of the petitioners or the private respondents; these are matters to be looked into in the first instance by the Land Acquisition Officer.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 563 of 2024 — Bhadekari Kalyankari v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., coram M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ., decided 8 April 2025 (opinion signed by Jitendra Jain, J). Petitioners claiming to be tenants sought to pre-empt the Land Acquisition Officer apportioning the entire land-acquisition compensation in favour of the landlords (respondent nos. 6 and 7) to their exclusion. As an award was yet to be passed, the Court held the petition premature, being based only on an apprehension that the LAO might not follow the law. It nevertheless directed, citing several instances of hurried apportionment decisions and disbursements, that the LAO may proceed to make his award but shall not disburse any amount to any party for at least 4 weeks from the date of clear intimation of the making of the award (with a copy) to the petitioner's association. Parties aggrieved by the award were left at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings; the Court expressly did not examine the rival claims, leaving them to be looked into in the first instance by the LAO. Petition disposed of with the above direction and liberties; no order as to costs.

Digitally signed SAYYED by SAYYED SAEED ALI SAEED ALIAHMED ALI AHMED Date: ALI 2025.04.09 10:39:31 +0530

Revati

1 7.WP.563.24.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(7)WRIT PETITION NO.563 OF 2024

Bhadekari Kalyankari ...Petitioner Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

Dr Ramdas Sabban a/w Mr Shrikanth Kompelli a/w Mr Rohit Chitiken, for the Petitioner.

Mr Abhay Patki for Solapur Municipal Corporation/ Respondent No.4

Mr Akshay Shinde for respondent No.6 and 7.

Ms Savina Crasto, AGP for the State/respondent No.1 to 3.

CORAM M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 8 APRIL 2025

PC:-

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This petition has been filed on the apprehension that the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) might apportion the entire compensation in favour of the landlord i.e. respondent nos. 6 and 7 to the exclusion of the petitioner's who claim to be tenant.

An award is yet to be passed. Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 and 7states that the petitioners' have been called upon to furnish certain documents by Land Acquisition Officer.

2 7.WP.563.24.docx

Accordingly, we agree that this petition is quite premature and is based only on an apprehension that the Land Acquisition Officer might not follow the law.

Still, since we have been come across several instances where Land Acquisition Officer/Competent Authority have been hurriedly deciding apportionment dispute themselves and also proceeding to disburse compensation amount to one of the disputing parties, we direct that the Land Acquisition Officer may proceed to make his award but the Land Acquisition Officer shall not disburse any amount to any parties for the period of atleast 4 weeks from the date of clear intimation of making of the award (alongwith copy of the award) to the petitioner's association.

If any parties are aggrieved with the award, they would be at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings in connection with such award. We clarify that we have not examined the claims of the petitioners or private respondents because these are matters which should be looked into in the first instance by the Land Acquisition Officer.

With the above direction and liberties, we dispose of this petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

All concerned to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.

(Jitendra Jain, J)