Shaukatali Abdul Kuddus Choudhari vs Manohar Jangal Gosavi Since Decd Throu. L.H. and Ors.

¶1

916-WP-16177-2025.DOC

¶2

Arun Sankpal

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 16177 OF 2025

¶6

Shakuntala Abdul Kuddus Choudhari ..Petitioner Versus Suchitra Sachin Kpatekar & Ors …Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 7996 OF 2025

¶9

Shakuntala Abdul Kuddus Choudhari ..Petitioner Versus Mandhar Jangal Gosavi Since Deceased Through …Respondents L.H. & Ors

¶10

Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate, Chaitanya B. Nikte, i/b Prajit S Sahane, for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Laxman S Deshmukh, for Respondent No.1 in WP/16177/2025. Mr. Pavan S Patil, with Tanmay A Deshmukh, for Respondent Nos. 1A and 1B in WP/7996/2025.

¶12

Smt. Pratibha Gavhane, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/16177/2025.

¶13

Smt. Savina R. Crasto, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/7996/2025.

¶14

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 3^rd DECEMBER 2025

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

Digitally signed ARUNRAMCHANDRASANKPAL by ARUNRAMCHANDRASANKPALDate: 2025.12.05 09:53:14 +0530

¶17

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶18

The challenge in these Petitions is to the orders dated 4^th April

¶19

2025 (in Writ Petition No. 7996 of 2025) and 9^th May 2025 (in Writ

¶20

1/4

¶21

916-WP-16177-2025.DOC

¶22

Petition No. 16177 of 2025) passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Khed-Rajgurunagar, Pune in the references purported to be made under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (“the Act, 1961”)

¶23

It appears that the Sub Divisional Officer had passed an award in respect of the acquisition of land on 27^nd December 2019. In the wake of the dispute as to apportionment of compensation, a reference was made to the Competent Authority on 20^th July 2020 purportedly under Section 35 of the Act, 1961.

¶24

By the impugned order dated 4^th April 2025 in WP No.7996 of 2025, the learned District Judge declared that the Respondent No.1 through his L.Rs. Surekha Manohar Gosavi, Ramdas Alia Appa Manohar Gosavi and Laxman Manohar Gosavi, is entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the land bearing Gat No.812/1/18, Area 1H

¶25

21R of village Ambethan, subject to certain deductions. The learned Judge also gave consequential directions.

¶26

When the Petition was listed before this Court, on 27^th June 2025, this Court was persuaded to pass inter alia the following order:

¶27

“5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order would be without jurisdiction as the reference should have been made to the competent authority. However, the reference was made to the civil Court and the decision is also taken by the civil Court. He points out

¶28

2/4

¶29

916-WP-16177-2025.DOC

¶30

the amended Section 35 and sub-Section (a-1) of Section 2 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961.”

¶31

The provisions contained in Section 35 of the Act, 1961 which provides for the resolution of the disputes as to apportionment of the compensation settled under Section 33 of the 1961, came to be amended by Mah. Act of 27 of 2019. The word ‘Court’, to which the reference was to be made by the Collector, came to be substituted by the word ‘Authority’.

¶32

A new clause i.e. clause (a-1) also came to be inserted by the said amendment, whereby the “Authority”, referred to under Section 35, came to be defined to mean the Authority defined in Clause (f) of Section 3 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶33

Mr. Pravin Patil, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1A and 1B in Writ Petition No. 7996 of 2025 fairly submitted that in view of the aforesaid amendment in the Act, 1961, reference to the Court was not competent.

¶34

Evidently, in view of the legislative change, the impugned orders passed by the Court are without jurisdiction. Since the reference to the Court itself was incompetent and the orders of apportionment passed by the Court are clearly without jurisdiction, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.

¶35

3/4

¶36

916-WP-16177-2025.DOC

¶37

Hence, the following order:

¶38

: O R D E R :

¶39

(i) Petitions stand allowed.

¶40

(ii) The impugned orders stand quashed and set aside

¶41

(ii) The Collector is directed to make the reference to the ‘Authority’ as defined under Clause (a-1) of Section 2 of Act, 1961, within a period of one month from today.

¶42

(iii) In the event such references are made, the Authority is requested to decide the references as expeditiously as possible, and, preferably, within a period of six months.

¶43

(iv) The amount deposited by the acquiring body along with accrued interest thereon be remitted by the Civil Court to the Authority, which shall, in turn, deposit the said amount in an interest bearing account.

¶44

(v) All contentions of all the parties are kept open for consideration.

¶45

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶46

4/4

Shaukatali Abdul Kuddus Choudhari v. Manohar Jangal Gosavi Since Decd Throu. L.H. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaukatali Abdul Kuddus Choudhari v. Manohar Jangal Gosavi Since Decd Throu. L.H. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

S. Ramaswamy Vs the Department of Income Tax, Central Circle

The Custodian Vs Sale of Attached Property Situated at E162 Greater Kailash Part II New Delhi Belonging to Ffsl

Azam Laik Ali Shaikh vs the Dy Commissioner of Police and Ors.

M/S Hanware Realty Builders and Developers vs Mrs. Pramila Fernando Poa Amala Selvan Fernando

Shri Shivam Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd. vs Vileparle Nilambari Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd. and Ors.

Ramubai Krushna Patil vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.