Disputes regarding compensation apportionment under the MIDC Act must be referred to a judicial authority, not decided by administrative officers, ensuring proper legal process is followed.

Order :

M. S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule in both these petitions. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The learned counsel for the parties agree that a common judgment and order can dispose of both these petitions because common issues of law and fact arise. They point out that the only difference in the two petitions is the survey numbers of the properties acquired. They request that Writ Petition No.10482 of 2023 may be treated as the lead petition.

4. The Petitioner challenges order dated 24^th July, 2023 made by Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Maval Mulshi, Sub-Division Pune in proceedings No. Land Acquisition/Objection/SR/1,3,6,8,21/23 dated 24^th July, 2023. They seek a mandamus directing the Sub- Divisional Officer-Respondent No.27 (R-27) to deposit the compensation amount as determined in the award dated 27^th February 2023 in the account of Civil Judge Junior Division at Vadgaon where Regular Civil Suit No.96 of 2019 is pending. Possibly, in the alternate, they seek similar relief of deposit of the compensation amount before the authority prescribed under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (MIDC Act).

5. The Petitioner claims an interest in the property acquired under the award dated 27^th February 2023. Accordingly, he filed his objections before R-27 regarding apportioning the compensation amount. By the impugned order dated 24^th July 2023, R-27 has dismissed the Petitioner’s objection and directed the disbursement of the compensation amount to some of the Respondents in this petition upon such Respondents furnishing an indemnity bond. R-27 has thus declined the reference under Section 35 of the MIDC Act and insists on disbursing the compensation amount to some of the Respondents. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24^th July 2023 and the insistence to disburse compensation, the Petitioner has instituted the present petition.

6. This petition was moved for urgent circulation on 22^nd August 2023. A Co-ordinate Bench of (Coram: B. P. Colabawalla and M. M. Sathaye, JJ.) by way of interim relief restrained R-27 from disbursing the compensation amount to any of the parties under the award dated 27^th February 2023 until further orders. This interim order continues to date.

7. Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that under Section 35 of the MIDC Act if any dispute arises as to apportionment of the compensation amount or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector-SDO may refer such a dispute to the decision of the authority as defined under Section 2(a-1) of the MIDC Act.

8. Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude submits that this provision is like the one contained in the National Highways Act, the Maharashtra Highways Act or even the Land Acquisition Act, which require the dispute of apportionment to be referred to the Court for adjudication. He relies upon Sojar @ Rukminibai w/o Hari Mule Vs. Krishnath @ Krishna s/o Gopal Tate and ors., 2025 SCC OnLine (Bom) 307 and upon Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar and ors. Vs. District Magistrate, Mau and ors., 2023 Live Law SC 511in support of his contentions.

9. Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude submits that in 2019, the Petitioner instituted a civil suit claiming an interest in the property, which is now the subject matter of acquisition and payment of compensation. He referred to the genealogy and tried to demonstrate how the Petitioner has right, title and interest in the property, which is now compulsorily acquired. He submitted that the SDO’s impugned order, to the extent it observes that the Petitioner has not produced any interim order from the pending suit, is quite perverse because such production or non-production cannot be the basis for disbursal of the compensation amount by the SDO to the other authorities, solely because the names of such other parties appeared in the