Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. Sonak, Jitendra Jain, JJ
Bhaskar Mahipat Pavale – Appellant
Versus
Lalita Gajanan Chinchawade – Respondent
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 24th 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 24th 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 27th 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
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.
The competent authority under the National Highways Act lacks jurisdiction to decide apportionment disputes, which must be referred to the Principal Civil Court.
The competent authority under the National Highways Act lacks jurisdiction to apportion compensation and must refer such disputes to the Principal Civil Court.
(1) Acquisition of land – If any dispute arises as to apportionment of amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom same or any part thereof is payable, then, competent authority shall refer d....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that disputes regarding apportionment of compensation under the National Highways Act should be referred to the principal civil court of origin....
The Land Acquisition Officer lacks jurisdiction to decide disputes over compensation apportionment, which must be referred to the Principal Civil Court for resolution.
Apportionment disputes under the Maharashtra Highways Act must be referred to the Principal Civil Court, and actions by the Land Acquisition Officer that violate this principle are ultra vires.
The Collector is statutorily obligated to refer disputes regarding compensation apportionment to the Court, and failure to do so renders any decision made without jurisdiction.
The Deputy Collector lacked jurisdiction to amend a finalized award under the Land Acquisition Act; disputes on compensation apportionment must be determined by a Civil Court based on the parties' ri....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority's power to review orders and its jurisdiction under the relevant sections of the act were central to the court's decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
