The Land Acquisition Officer lacks jurisdiction to decide disputes over compensation apportionment, which must be referred to the Principal Civil Court for resolution.

JUDGMENT :

MS Sonak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition was directed to be listed for final disposal on 13 February 2025 at 2:30 p.m. by order dated 11 February 2025. Accordingly, Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. By instituting this petition, the Petitioners seek the following substantive reliefs: -

“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction, inter alia, calling for the records and proceedings before the Respondent No.2 in respect of the Impugned Order dated 11th March 2024 (Exhibit “D” hereto) and after considering the legality, validity and/or propriety thereof, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 11th March 2024 passed by the Respondent No.2 as illegal and in excess of the jurisdiction vested under section 19 of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955;

(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent No.2 to deposit the entire amount payable towards acquisition of the larger property, being an amount of Rs.27,74,18,154/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Crore Seventy Four Lakh Eighteen Thousand One Hundred Fifty Four only) in the partnership account of Respondent No.3, the details of which are provided at Exhibit “Q”;

(c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to refer the disputes regarding the apportionment and/or the payment of the amount pursuant to the award to the principal civil court exercising original jurisdiction in accordance with section19C (4) of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955;”

4. On 30 October 2024, the Vacation Bench granted interim relief in this petition, restraining the fourth and fifth Respondents from withdrawing the amounts deposited in this Court. This interim order was continued until further orders.

5. A brief conspectus of the facts and circumstances in which the Petitioners have sought the above reliefs is set out hereafter.

6. M/s Shree Tirupati Construction [R3] is a registered partnership firm comprising Petitioners 1 and 2 and Respondents 4 and 5 as its partners. The deed of partnership dated 01 December 2007 (E/ 187-196), by which it was constituted, specifies that each of the four partners holds a 25 percent share in the firm.

7. By three registered conveyance deeds [all dated 02 February 2008] at (A-1 / 45-91, A-2/ 92-132 and A-3/133-174) certain portions from out of the land bearing Gat Nos. 90 and 91/1, village Ambedvet, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune, were purchased by the firm. Still, Respondents 4 and 5 contend that this purchase was by the partners of the firm and not the firm itself. In support, Respondents 4 and 5 submit that the purchased lands were not shown as held by the firm in its balance sheets from the date of purchase to date.

8. By notice dated 14 October 2022, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Maval-Mulshi Sub-Division, Pune, Respondent No.2 herein (Land Acquisition Officer) (“LAO”) informed the firm that the property surveyed under numbers 91/1/A, 91/1B and 91/1P measuring 2.3458 Ha. (Acquired Property) was being acquired for highway purposes under the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 [MH Act]. This property was a part of the properties forming the subject matter of the three conveyance deeds dated 02 February 2008.

9. On 01 November 2022, the fourth and fifth Respondents objected to the notice dated 14 October 2022, submitting that the compensation for the Acquired Property must be divided between the four partners equally, i.e. 25 percent or one-fourth each. The demand was also made to apply the fair market value and not go by Ready Reckoner rates when determining compensation for the Acquired Property.

10. On 06 August 2023, the first Petitioner addressed a letter on behalf of the firm stating that any application on behalf of the firm should be considered only when all four partners give their consent for