IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
R.M. Borde, K.L. Wadane, JJ.
Ashok Ramling More – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highway – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1473 of 2016
Decided On : 13-07-2016
Competent Authority - Land Acquisition - Disbursement of Compensation - Jurisdiction of Civil Court
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners objected to the orders passed by the Competent Authority refusing to refer the dispute raised by them in respect of disbursement of compensation to the Civil Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the dispute raised by the petitioners fell within the purview of Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and therefore, the Competent Authority's orders were in excess of its jurisdiction and deserved to be quashed and set aside. The Court directed the Competent Authority to forward the objections and the amount determined to the Principal Civil Court for resolution.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Competent Authority, Entitlement of Petitioners to Compensation, Pending Appeal on Title
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Competent Authority did not have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute raised by the petitioners regarding the entitlement to compensation, as it fell within the purview of Section 3H(4) of the Act, and therefore, should be referred to the Principal Civil Court for resolution.
Final Decision: The Court made the rule absolute, quashed the orders of the Competent Authority, and directed the Competent Authority to forward the objections and the determined amount to the Principal Civil Court for resolution. The Court also directed the District Judge to decide the pending appeal expeditiously and ordered the disbursement of the amount to be dealt with by the Court within three months.
R.M. Borde, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.
3. The petitioners are objecting to the orders passed by the Competent Authority/The Deputy collector, Land Acquisition, Medium Project No. 2, Osmanabad, refusing to refer the dispute raised by the petitioners in respect of disbursement of amount of compensation to the Civil Court.
4. Perused the orders passed by the Competent Authority and heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
5. On perusal of the application tendered by the petitioners as well as on consideration of the orders, we are of the considered view that the dispute raised by the petitioners in the matter cannot be dealt with by the Competent Authority, exercising jurisdiction under section 3H(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the dispute raised falls within the purview of Section 3H(4) of the Act.
6. Section 3H(4) of the Act prescribes that if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. In the instant matter, on perusal of the objection, it prima facie appears that the dispute raised by the petitioners is in respect of "any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable." Since, the dispute raised in the matter is in respect of entitlement of the petitioners to claim the amount or part of the amount determined by the competent authority as compensation payable for the acquired property, there is no option available to the competent authority to deal with the dispute but to refer the same for decision of the principal civil Court of the original jurisdiction.
7. It does appear that the competent authority has dealt with the objections and expressed opinion as regards merits of the claim raised by the petitioners. It prima facie appears that the dispute raised does not come within the ambit of section 3H(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956. In a case, where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1) of section 3H, the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. In the instant matter, the dispute is not as regards persons or several persons who claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1) of section 3H of the Act. The dispute raised is in respect of entitlement of the petitioners to receive the amount or part of the amount. The petitioners claim their entitlement on the basis of title derived by them and since the question is raised as regards the title of the petitioners qua the acquired property, we are of the opinion that it is only the Principal Civil Court of the original jurisdiction which would be competent to deal with the issue and pronounce the judgment.
8. In the facts of the case, the order passed by the competent authority, according to us, is in excess of the jurisdiction vested in the competent authority and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside and accordingly it is quashed and set aside.
9. The objections raised by the petitioners in both the matters together with the amount determined by the competent authority shall be forwarded to the Principal Civil Court of the original jurisdiction of District Osmanabad. The competent authority shall forward the objections together with amount within a period of 15 days from today.
10. The Court dealing with the objections shall decide the dispute after recording evidence of the parties as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of record and proceedings.
11. It is informed that the first appeal concerning the title of the petitioners bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 159 of 201
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.