Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, decided a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Washim, under the National Highways Act, 1956. The dispute concerned agricultural land bearing Gat No.18/2, which was acquired for National Highway No.161 to the extent of 0.6284 hectares out of 5.73 hectares. Late Piraji Bhiwaji Ingole, father of the petitioner, was declared a tenant in respect of the subject land. There was a chequered history of litigation between the legal heirs of the tenant and the predecessor of respondent No.4. Regular Civil Suit No.53/1998 was decreed in favour of the tenant, restraining the predecessor of respondent No.4 from executing any sale deed in favour of any person other than the tenant. Regular Civil Suit No.44/2001 was also decreed in 2003, declaring sale transactions executed by the predecessor of respondent No.4 as illegal and void, and holding the tenant to be in possession. Regular Civil Suit No.105/2015, filed by one of the legal representatives, was pending. After acquisition of the land, the petitioner presented an objection before the competent authority claiming entitlement to compensation as a legal heir of the tenant, relying on succession certificate, tenancy order of 1989, and injunction orders. The competent authority, by order dated 21 January 2020, rejected the objection and allowed respondent No.4 to withdraw the compensation amount. The petitioner challenged this order on the ground that Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, obligated the competent authority to refer any dispute regarding apportionment to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The High Court noted that the statutory provision uses mandatory language and leaves no discretion to the competent authority. The court relied on its own earlier decisions and the Supreme Court's decision in Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate, Mau, which held that disputes as to apportionment must be referred to the Principal Civil Court. The court found that the competent authority committed jurisdictional overreach by deciding the objection and allowing withdrawal. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the dispute was referred to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Since respondent No.4 had already withdrawn the amount, the court directed respondent No.4 to deposit the compensation amount in court within three months, as undertaken by filing a pursis on 29 July 2025. The amount would carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of withdrawal till deposit or realisation. The Collector, Washim was directed to take recovery measures, including attachment of property and bank accounts and auction, if the amount was not deposited by 29 October 2025. The writ petition was allowed, rule made absolute, and no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - National Highways Act - Apportionment Dispute Must Be Referred to Principal Civil Court - National Highways Act, 1956, Section 3H(4) - Dispute arose between legal heirs of tenant and respondent No.4 over entitlement to compensation for acquired land; competent authority rejected petitioner's objection and allowed respondent No.4 to withdraw compensation instead of referring dispute. Held that Section 3H(4) leaves no discretion to competent authority; it must refer any dispute as to apportionment or entitlement to Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction; impugned order quashed and dispute referred (Paras 6-13).
B) Writ Jurisdiction - Recovery of Wrongfully Withdrawn Compensation - Interest and Deposit Direction - National Highways Act, 1956, Section 3H(4) - Since respondent No.4 had withdrawn compensation under order later quashed, court followed precedents requiring recall of wrongful payment; respondent No.4 undertook to deposit amount within three months and directed to deposit with 6% interest from withdrawal date; Collector to recover if default (Paras 14-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the competent authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 was obliged to refer the petitioner's objection regarding apportionment of compensation to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under Section 3H(4), and whether the impugned order rejecting the objection and allowing withdrawal was sustainable.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 21.01.2020 quashed and set aside; dispute raised by petitioner referred to Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within whose jurisdiction the land is situated; respondent No.4 directed to deposit compensation amount in this Court within three months (by 29/10/2025) as per undertaking with interest at 6% per annum from date of withdrawal till date of deposit or realisation; Collector, Washim directed to take recovery measures including attaching property and bank accounts and auctioning if amount not deposited by 29/10/2025; rule made absolute; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act
- 1956 mandates that any dispute as to apportionment of compensation or entitlement must be referred by the competent authority to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction
- competent authority has no discretion to decide such objection
- order deciding objection and allowing withdrawal is jurisdictionally invalid
- wrongfully withdrawn compensation must be deposited with interest
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (07) 166
Writ Petition No.373/2022
Mr. V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for petitioner; Ms Prachi Joshi, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3; Mr. P.M. Pande, Advocate for respondent No.4
State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai; The Collector Washim; The Sub-Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Washim; Balasaheb Madhavrao Naik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order dated 21.01.2020 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Washim in relation to objection to apportionment/disbursement of compensation for land acquired under National Highways Act, 1956.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 21.01.2020 and an interim restraint against execution, along with costs, urging that the competent authority had no jurisdiction to decide the objection and should have referred the dispute to the Principal Civil Court.
Filing Reason
The competent authority, despite objection by petitioner claiming entitlement as legal heir of tenant Piraji Ingole, rejected the objection and allowed respondent No.4 to withdraw compensation without referring the dispute to the Principal Civil Court as required by Section 3H(4) of National Highways Act, 1956.
Previous Decisions
Regular Civil Suit No.53/1998 decreed in favour of tenant Piraji, restraining predecessor of respondent No.4 from alienating property except to tenant; Regular Civil Suit No.44/2001 decreed in 2003, declaring sale transactions by predecessor of respondent No.4 illegal and void; Regular Civil Suit No.105/2015 pending; Regular Civil Suit No.42/2019 dismissed in default; impugned order dated 21.01.2020 rejected petitioner's objection and allowed withdrawal by respondent No.4.
Issues
Whether Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 mandated the competent authority to refer the petitioner's objection regarding apportionment of compensation to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction?
Whether the impugned order dated 21.01.2020 deciding the objection and allowing withdrawal of compensation by respondent No.4 was valid in light of statutory provisions and judicial precedents?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that upon presentation of objection, respondent No.3 was statutorily obliged to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and relied on several decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court.
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 supported the impugned order, contending that the competent authority's order was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, when any dispute arises as to apportionment of compensation amount or to any person to whom it is payable, the competent authority has no discretion to decide the objection and must refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The competent authority committed jurisdictional overreach by rejecting the objection and allowing one party to withdraw compensation. Such order must be quashed, and the amount withdrawn must be deposited with interest.
Judgment Excerpts
The statutory provisions obligate the respondent No.3 herein to refer the dispute, mandated by virtue of provisions of Section 3 H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 to refer it to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
once an objection is presented, it was obligatory for the respondent No.3 to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, as is mandated by Section 3 H (4) of the National Highways Act.
Thus, the respondent No.3 has committed overreach while deciding the objection presented by the petitioner de hors the statutory provision and the statement of law declared by Apex Court vis-a-vis this Court.
the impugned order is unsustainable, therefore same is liable to be quashed and set aside and accordingly same is hereby quashed by referring the dispute raised by the petitioner to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
Following the judgments in its letter and spirit, the respondent No.4 is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this Court within period of three months... with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its withdrawal till date of deposit/its realisation.
Procedural History
Late Piraji Bhiwaji Ingole was declared a tenant in respect of agricultural land Gat No.18/2. Regular Civil Suit No.53/1998 filed by tenant Piraji against Ratnabai Naik, predecessor of respondent No.4, was decreed, restraining her from executing sale deed in favour of anyone except the tenant. Regular Civil Suit No.44/2001 filed by Piraji and other tenants was decreed in 2003, declaring sale transactions by Ratnabai illegal and void and holding the tenant in possession. Regular Civil Suit No.53/2015 filed by Narayan Piraji Ingole against Vitthal Piraji Ingole for partition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit. Regular Civil Suit No.105/2015 filed by Narayan s/o Piraji was pending. Regular Civil Suit No.42/2019 for injunction was dismissed in default. The subject land was acquired for National Highway No.161 to the extent of 0.6284 hectares out of 5.73 hectares. Petitioner presented objection before the competent authority claiming entitlement to compensation as legal heir of tenant Piraji, relying on succession certificate and tenancy order. By order dated 21.01.2020 in Case N.H. No.161/34/47/2016-17, respondent No.3 rejected the objection and allowed respondent No.4 to withdraw compensation. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.373/2022 challenging that order. The High Court admitted the petition, made rule returnable forthwith, and heard it finally by consent of parties. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, the dispute was referred to the Principal Civil Court, and directions for deposit and recovery were issued.
Acts & Sections
- National Highways Act, 1956: Section 3H(4)
