Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Pravin Girish Chamaria and Nishit Bechar Patel, along with respondents 4 and 5 (Dilip Prabhakar Kudalkar and Jagdish Shashikumar Raje) were partners in M/s Shree Tirupati Construction, a registered partnership firm constituted by a deed dated 1 December 2007, with each partner holding a 25% share. By three registered conveyance deeds dated 2 February 2008, certain portions of land bearing Gat Nos. 90 and 91/1 at village Ambedvet, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune were purchased. The firm claimed the purchase was for the firm, while respondents 4 and 5 contended it was by the partners individually, noting that the lands were not shown as firm assets in balance sheets. On 14 October 2022, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) issued a notice acquiring part of the land (survey nos. 91/1/A, 91/1B, 91/1P measuring 2.3458 Ha) for highway purposes under the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955. Respondents 4 and 5 objected on 1 November 2022, demanding equal 25% apportionment and fair market value. On 6 August 2023, the first petitioner, on behalf of the firm, requested that compensation be paid only into the firm's bank account. The LAO held a hearing on 2 January 2024 and, by order dated 11 March 2024, apportioned compensation 25% to each partner, rejecting the firm's claim. The petitioners challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 4363 of 2024, which was disposed of on 29 April 2024 with liberty to file a fresh petition. The present petition was filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the LAO's order and directions to deposit the entire compensation (Rs. 27,74,18,154/-) in the firm's account or refer the dispute to the civil court under Section 19C(4) of the Act. The court held that the LAO had no jurisdiction to decide the apportionment dispute between the firm and its partners, as such disputes must be referred to the principal civil court under Section 19C(4). The impugned order was quashed, and the LAO was directed to refer the dispute to the civil court. The interim order restraining withdrawal of amounts deposited in court was continued until the civil court decides the reference.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Apportionment of Compensation - Jurisdiction of Land Acquisition Officer - Section 19C(4) of Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 - Dispute between partnership firm and its partners regarding apportionment of compensation for acquired land - Held that the LAO cannot decide such dispute and must refer it to the principal civil court under Section 19C(4) of the Act (Paras 17-20). B) Partnership Law - Property of Firm - Section 14 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Property acquired with partnership funds is partnership property - Held that land purchased by partners but claimed to be for the firm raises a dispute as to ownership, which must be adjudicated by civil court (Paras 6-7, 17-20). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Availability of Statutory Remedy - Section 19C(4) of Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 - Held that writ petition is maintainable despite alternative remedy because the LAO acted without jurisdiction (Paras 17-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Land Acquisition Officer under the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 has the jurisdiction to decide the apportionment of compensation between a partnership firm and its individual partners, or whether such dispute must be referred to the principal civil court under Section 19C(4) of the Act.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 11 March 2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Respondent No.2) is quashed and set aside. The LAO is directed to refer the dispute regarding apportionment of compensation to the principal civil court having original jurisdiction in accordance with Section 19C(4) of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955. The interim order dated 30 October 2024 restraining respondents 4 and 5 from withdrawing amounts deposited in court shall continue until the civil court decides the reference.
Law Points
- Section 19C(4) of Maharashtra Highways Act
- 1955
- apportionment of compensation
- partnership firm vs individual partners
- jurisdiction of Land Acquisition Officer
- reference to civil court
