Point of Law : It is a settled principle of interpretation of statute that the provisions of any statute are to be interpreted to give effect to each of them to the extent possible without giving any rise to any conflict or overlapping. This principle of harmonious construction needs to be applied in the matter before hand vis-a-vis sub-section (3) of section 3-H, while interpreting Sub-section (3).

JUDGMENT :

S. G. Mehare, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. 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 Nos.3 and 4 be directed to release the enhanced compensation towards the lands acquired to the extent of 1 H. 2 Are from village Kasara Dumala, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar in favour of the petitioners as per the award dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Arbitrator-Cum- Collector, National Highways Authority.

3. The brief facts relevant to determine the controversy are narrated as follows:

a) The petitioners are the grand children of the cousin uncle of respondent No.5. The petitioners are the owners of Survey Nos.44/9, (old survey No.44/5/A/1) admeasuring 1 H. 80 Are, and Survey No.44/34 (old survey No.44/5/B/2) measuring 82 Are at village Kasara Dumala, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. The above lands had fallen to the share of their grandfather Dattatraya Laxman Dawkhare and after him to the petitioners' father, namely Vitthal Dattatraya Dawkhare.

(b) The land admeasuring 1 H. 2 Are out of the above survey numbers was acquired under the National Highways Act. The Competent Authority had passed an award on 24.04.2006.

(c) The petitioners had fled an application before the Arbitrator-Cum-Collector, Ahmednagar, under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act 1956. ('1956 Act' for short). The Arbitrator-Cum-Collector was pleased to allow the application granting enhanced compensation. After the Arbitrator passed the award, the amount determined by him was deposited with respondent No.4, the Competent Authority Land Acquisition authorized by the Central Government by notification issued under the 1956 Act.

(d) Respondent No.4 issued a notice to the petitioners dated 19.05.2016 calling upon them to collect the compensation determined by the Arbitrator-Cum- Collector, Ahmednagar. However, respondent No.5 raised an objection on 18.04.2016 and claimed the share in the compensation amount before respondent No.4.

4. Respondent No.5 Janardhan had fled 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.

5. Until the Arbitrator determined the compensation amount, respondent No.5 never raised any objection, neither before the Arbitrator nor respondent No.4. Since the amount of compensation determined by the Arbitrator was high, respondent No.5 raised a false claim of his share in the acquired lands on 18.04.2016.

6. The petitioners further submit that a charge was created on the properties in question for Rs.30,000/- in respect of the whole property shared by the grandfather of petitioners’ and the real uncle of respondent situated at village Samnapur and Kasara Dumala to be shared by the grandfather of petitioners’, and real uncle of respondent No.5. The entry of said charge was deleted with the consent and statement of the father of respondent No.5 in 1970 by Circle Inspector. However, the entry of the charge remained intact till 1996. The deceased father of the petitioners applied to delete that entry from the record. The said entry was deleted by following the procedure of law vide mutation entry No.2269 dated 12.04.1996. They took a stand that the mutation entry in the other rights column creating a charge of Rs.30,00 was deleted mala fide. The said entry was deleted with the consent and statement of Digambar (the father of respondent No.5) in 1970 vide mutation Entry No.2269 dated 12.04.1996. Unfortunately, in the mutation entry, though the statement of Digambar was recorded, the name of Shantabai was mentioned. Respondent No.5 is taking disadvantage of that inadvertent mistake.

7. Respondent No.5 impugned the mutation entry Nos.2269 and 377 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sangamner, along w