Point of Law : Respondents, therefore, cannot retain the amounts received by them. Instead, they will have to deposit these amounts before the Reference Court.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Sufficient time was granted to the parties to complete pleadings, and parties were put to notice that these matters would be taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

3. As substantially common issues of law and fact arise in each of these petitions, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, we dispose of these three petitions with a common judgment and order. However, Writ Petition No.356/2021 will be treated as the lead petition, and allowances will be made for the distinguishing facts in the other two petitions.

4. By final award dated 29.10.2015, the Deputy Collector/S.D.O. & Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) referred the disputes for apportionment of compensation between the petitioner on one hand and respondent nos.5 to 26 on the other for determination by the District Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The compensation amount was also directed to be deposited in the District Court. This amount was to abide by the determination of shares and apportionment to be made by the District Court (Reference Court). The L.A.O., who made this award, was Mr. N.M. Gad.

5. After the transfer of Mr. N.M. Gad, Mr. Ravishankar Nipanikar (respondent no.4) began functioning as L.A.O. In 2019, he entertained applications from respondents nos.5 to 26 and disbursed an amount of over Rs.5.00 crores to the said respondents, who claimed that they were the tenants of the acquired property. This claim was entirely premised on certain entries in survey records.

6. Mr. Ravishankar Nipanikar (respondent no.4) made the above disbursements:-

(a) Despite the final award dated 29.10.2015 made by his predecessor Mr. N.M. Gad noting the disputes between the parties and ordering a reference under Section 30 of the said Act. After such reference, Mr. Nipanikar had become functus officio and lacked any authority to review or modify the final award dated 29.10.2015 substantially;

(b) Without issuing any notice to the petitioner and other interested persons or otherwise complying with principles of natural justice and fair play;

(c) By relying, at least in Writ Petition No.356/2021, solely upon entries in revenue records;

7. In Writ Petition No.313/2021 and Writ Petition No.1044/2018, the facts and circumstances are not much different from those referred above. However, the L.A.O. who ordered the disbursements was Mr. Sudhir Kerkar (respondent no.4). Further, the beneficiaries of the disbursement had produced a declaration of tenancy and purchase sanads in addition to revenue records. The amount disbursed by Kerkar after he lacked authority to tinker with the final award made by his predecessor and without any notice to the affected parties was over Rs.9.00 crores.

8. Nipanikar has not bothered to file an affidavit. However, Kerkar has filed an affidavit in Writ Petition No.313/2021 and stated that the disbursement cheques were distributed by the then Tourism and Sports Minister and M.L.A. of Pernem Taluka to the beneficiaries. Paragraph 10 of his affidavit reads as follows:

"10. I say that in view of the fact that the tenants had produced documents evidencing their right to the compensation payable to the aforesaid land, the office of the Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 10/10/2017 requested the Assistant Manager (Accounts), E.D.C. Limited to release the amounts due to the tenants. The cheque/s for the amounts were distributed by the then Tourism and Sports Minister and M.L.A. of Pernem Taluka, to the beneficiaries."

9. Before the disbursements, the beneficiaries were called upon and have furnished indemnity bonds to indemnify the L.A.O. for any loss that may be occasioned on account of the release of the amounts. After the instituti