Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of the original landowner, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to release enhanced compensation awarded by the Arbitrator under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The land, admeasuring 1 H. 2 Are out of Survey Nos.44/9 and 44/34 at village Kasara Dumala, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, was acquired under the National Highways Act, and the Competent Authority passed an award on 24.04.2006. The petitioners filed an application for enhancement before the Arbitrator, who allowed it by award dated 31.10.2013, and the enhanced amount was deposited with respondent No.4, the Competent Authority. Respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 19.05.2016 to the petitioners to collect the compensation, but respondent No.5, Janardhan Dawkhare, raised an objection on 18.04.2016 claiming a share in the compensation, despite having earlier filed and unconditionally withdrawn a partition suit on 05.10.1995 regarding the same lands. The petitioners contended that respondent No.5 had never objected before the Arbitrator and only raised a false claim after the compensation amount became high. They also referred to a charge of Rs.30,000 that was deleted from mutation records with consent of respondent No.5's father in 1970, and the deletion was recorded by mutation entry No.2269 dated 12.04.1996, which respondent No.5 challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sangamner, along with a delay condonation application. The SDO condoned the delay on 12.03.2018, and the Additional Collector dismissed the petitioners' revisions on 10.04.2018 and 27.04.2018. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.7473 of 2018 against those orders, and a Single Bench granted status quo. In the present writ petition, respondent No.4 filed an affidavit stating that compensation was not released due to written objections by respondent No.5 and his brother Jagannath, and that respondent No.5 had obtained ad-interim stay in R.T.S. Appeal No.225 of 2016. Respondent No.5 claimed to be a legal heir of Balaji with a 1/3rd share and alleged fraudulent mutation entries. The matter was reserved on 23.09.2021 and pronounced on 08.10.2021, but the provided judgment text ends before the final decision, so the operative order and ratio decidendi are not available.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to release enhanced compensation for acquired land when a co-claimant objected and mutation dispute is pending with status quo order in a connected writ petition.
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (10) 14
Writ Petition No.7347 of 2018
Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
A. S. Bajaj, P. S. Patil, A. N. Patale, K. N. Shermale
Jayant Vitthal Dawkhare, Vaibhav Vitthal Dawkhare, Swati Nitin Nilgar, Jyoti Subash Nirhali, Shailaja Ramkant Pulkundwar, Vaishali Ashok Wavdhane, Kusum w/o Vitthalrao Dawkhare
The State of Maharashtra, The Union of India, The Executive Engineer National High Way Division No.9, The Competent Authority and Sub Divisional Officer Sangamner Division, Janardhan S/o Digambar Dawkhare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking mandamus to direct release of enhanced compensation for land acquired under National Highways Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to release enhanced compensation for acquired land as per the Arbitrator's award dated 31.10.2013.
Filing Reason
Respondent No.4 refused to release compensation due to objection by respondent No.5 claiming a share and pending dispute regarding mutation entries; respondent No.5 had obtained ad-interim stay in R.T.S. Appeal No.225 of 2016 and status quo order in connected Writ Petition No.7473 of 2018.
Previous Decisions
Arbitrator passed award dated 31.10.2013 granting enhanced compensation; respondent No.5's prior partition suit withdrawn on 05.10.1995; Sub Divisional Officer condoned delay on 12.03.2018; Additional Collector dismissed revisions on 10.04.2018 and 27.04.2018; Single Bench in Writ Petition No.7473 of 2018 granted status quo.
Issues
Whether respondent Nos.3 and 4 should be directed to release enhanced compensation to petitioners despite objection by respondent No.5 and pending mutation dispute.
Whether the dispute over entitlement to compensation requires adjudication by civil court rather than writ court.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: They are entitled to compensation as per the Arbitrator's award; respondent No.5 withdrew partition suit in 1995 and never objected earlier; mutation entry deletion was lawful with consent of respondent No.5's father; respondent No.5's objection is false and belated due to high compensation.
Respondent No.5: He is a legal heir of Balaji with a 1/3rd share; serious issue of fraudulent mutation entry is pending; petitioners obtained stay in Writ Petition No.7473 of 2018, so compensation was correctly not released.
Respondent No.4: Compensation not released due to written objection from respondent No.5 and Jagannath, dispute over survey No.44/9, ad-interim stay in R.T.S. Appeal No.225 of 2016, and status quo order in Writ Petition No.7473 of 2018; dispute to be decided by civil court.
Judgment Excerpts
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
The petitioners approached this Court seeking writ of mandamus or any other writ, order, or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus.
Respondent No.5 Janardhan had filed a suit for partition and separate possession before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Sangamner. The acquired lands were also the suit properties in the said suit. However, on 05.10.1995, he withdrew the said suit unconditionally.
Procedural History
Land acquired under National Highways Act; Competent Authority passed award on 24.04.2006. Petitioners filed application under Section 3(G)(5) of National Highways Act, 1956; Arbitrator passed award dated 31.10.2013 granting enhanced compensation. Amount deposited with respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 issued notice dated 19.05.2016 to collect compensation. Respondent No.5 filed objection on 18.04.2016 claiming share. Respondent No.5 had earlier filed partition suit and withdrew it on 05.10.1995. Respondent No.5 filed R.T.S. Appeal No.225 of 2016 and obtained ad-interim stay. Respondent No.5 challenged mutation entries before Sub Divisional Officer with delay condonation application; SDO condoned delay on 12.03.2018. Petitioners filed revisions before Additional Collector; dismissed on 10.04.2018 and 27.04.2018. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.7473 of 2018 against those orders; Single Bench granted status quo. Present writ petition filed seeking mandamus to release compensation.
Acts & Sections
- National Highways Act, 1956: Section 3(G)(5)
