Partly allowed¶22

Mohanlal Chotulal Bhatawale v. Gangaram Chotulal Bahtawale and Others

Bombay HC21 Jan 2026WP/812/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

L.A.R. No.9/2019, Civil Judge Senior Division Nanded; National Highways Act 1956 Section 3-H(4) reference; award dated 10.11.2025 apportionment of compensation; Reference Court restraining disbursement after final award; functus officio argument; withholding of petitioner's share not sustainable once rights crystallized; interim protection till 01.02.2026 pending respondent no.1's writ petition; writ petition partly allowed; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; 2026:BHC-AUG:3246; S. G. Chapalgaonkar J.; decision dated 21.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Disbursement of the petitioner's apportioned compensation kept in abeyance till 01.02.2026; thereafter to be disbursed forthwith unless respondent no.1 files a writ petition securing interim stay, in which case the amount would remain with the Court. ¶22

Mohanlal Chotulal Bhatawale vs Gangaram Chotulal Bahtawale and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 01.01.2026 of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Nanded restraining disbursement of the petitioner's apportioned compensation could stand although the parties' shares had already been crystallized by the Reference Court's award dated 10.11.2025 in L.A.R. No.9/2019. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The Reference Court's award dated 10.11.2025 in L.A.R. No.9/2019 crystallized the shares of the respective parties; the petitioner's share stands crystallized under the same order and he is entitled to receive the amount.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order restraining disbursement cannot be countenanced, for the reason that the rights of the parties were already crystallized by the Reference Court under its order dated 10.11.2025.

¶20

Key takeaways

A party having objection to the Award is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings or a writ petition before this Court; however, until such a petition is filed, disbursement of the petitioner's share could not have been stalled indefinitely.ratio¶20
As a workable arrangement, the writ petition was partly allowed and disbursement of the amount apportioned in favour of the petitioner was ordered to be kept in abeyance till 01.02.2026.ratio¶23
If respondent no.1 files a writ petition and secures interim stay of disbursement, the amount would remain with the Court; otherwise, the amount falling to the petitioner's share is to be disbursed forthwith.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench [2026:BHC-AUG:3246], S. G. Chapalgaonkar J., 21 January 2026 - Writ Petition No. 812 of 2026, Mohanlal Chotulal Bhatawale v. Gangaram Chotulal Bahtawale and Others. Petitioner challenged the order dated 01.01.2026 of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Nanded (application below Exhibit-176, L.A.R. No.9/2019) restraining disbursement to him of compensation apportioned under the award dated 10.11.2025 made pursuant to a reference under Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Counsel for the petitioner argued the Reference Court had become 'functus officio' after the final award (printed 'fanctus officio'). The Court held that the parties' shares stood crystallized by the award dated 10.11.2025, that the impugned order could not be countenanced, and that disbursement could not be stalled indefinitely merely because respondent no.1 objected while no writ petition had yet been filed. Workable order passed: writ petition partly allowed; disbursement kept in abeyance till 01.02.2026; if respondent no.1 files a writ petition and secures interim stay, the amount remains with the Court, else it is to be disbursed forthwith to the petitioner.

¶1

953-wp-812-2026.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

2026:BHC-AUG:3246

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 812 OF 2026

¶5

MOHANLAL CHOTULAL BHATAWALE VERSUS

¶6

GANGARAM CHOTULAL BAHTAWALE AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr. Satyajit S. Bora, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶8

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 21^st JANUARY, 2026.

¶9

P.C.:-

¶10

The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated 01.01.2026 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Nanded on application below Exhibit-176 in L.A.R. No.9/2019, thereby restraining disbursement of amount of compensation to petitioner in terms of apportionment made under order dated 10.11.2025 in L.A.R. No.9/2019.

¶11

Mr. Satyajit Bora, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner would submit that on 10.11.2025 in L.A.R. No.9/2019, rights of parties have been decided in pursuance to reference made under Section 3-H(4) of National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioner is held entitled to receive compensation as per apportionment made in Clause No.4 of operative part of Award. In pursuance to Award dated 10.11.2025 passed in L.A.R. No.9/2019 respective parties made an application for disbursement of amount. At this stage, respondent no.1 objected disbursement of amount in favour of petitioner. The Reference Court partly allowed such objection and

¶12

953-wp-812-2026.odt

¶13

(2)

¶14

directed withholding compensation apportioned to share of petitioner.

¶15

Mr. Bora, learned Advocate would submit that once final Award was passed by Reference Court in L.A.R. No.9/2019, crystallizing rights of respective parties to receive compensation, Reference Court was being fanctus officio , could not have stayed or withhold disbursement of petitioner’s share, particularly when disbursement in respect of other parties has been permitted under same order.

¶16

Mr. Amit Mukhedkar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 submits that there is fundamental flaw in apportionment order dated 10.11.2025. The respondent no.1 is intending to challenge Award by filing Writ Petition before this Court. This particular fact was brought to the notice of Reference Court. Accordingly, impugned order is passed, thereby protecting interest of respondent no.1 for limited period of one month.

¶17

Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that impugned order apportioned amount in favour of respective parties in L.A.R. No.9/2019. Therefore, shares have been crystallized. Undisputedly, petitioner’s share is also crystallized under same order and he is entitled to receive amount. At this stage, objection is raised by respondent no.1 contending that he is aggrieved by

¶18

953-wp-812-2026.odt

¶19

(3)

¶20

apportionment in favour of petitioner. Apparently, till this date writ petition is not filed against Award. However, under impugned order limited protection is granted with condition that respondent no.1 shall submit details of writ petition, if any, filed within period of one month. The aforesaid order cannot be countenanced for simple reason that rights of parties are crystallized by Reference Court under its order dated 10.11.2025. If any party has objection to Award, he is at liberty to file appropriate proceeding or Writ Petition before this Court. However, in present case, till this date, Writ Petition is not filed. Therefore, disbursement of amount in favour of petitioner could not have been stalled indefinitely. In aforesaid background, following workable order can be passed:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

a. Writ Petition is partly allowed.

¶23

b. The disbursement of amount apportioned in favour of petitioner be kept in abeyance till 01.02.2026.

¶24

c. In case, respondent no.1 files writ petition and secures interim stay to the disbursement of amount, such amount would remain with Court, else amount falling to share of petitioner be forthwith disbursed.

¶25

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE

¶26

Devendra/January-2026

Mohanlal Chotulal Bhatawale v. Gangaram Chotulal Bahtawale and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanlal Chotulal Bhatawale v. Gangaram Chotulal Bahtawale and Others

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

Similar cases

M.S. Karan Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs Employees Provident Fund Organization Thr the Asst. Provident Fund Com. Aurangabad

Sundar Marutrao Gadade vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector and Others

Bhagabai Ananda Patil through Next Friend Prakash Ananda Patil vs Ujwal Jagdish Patil and Others

Vishal Gangadhar More Patil and Another vs Geeta Gangadhar More Patil and Others

Akbar Aklakh Shaikh vs the Additional Divisional Commissioner and Others

Khaled Bin Awaz Awaz Bin Mohammad through Gpa Holder Hasan Bin Awas Awas Bin Mohmmad and Another vs Vijayprakash Onkarlal Agrawal and Others