The absence of legal representatives of a deceased party does not invalidate an order made under the National Highways Act, and disputes over apportionment must be referred to the Principal Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vijay Killedar learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. M S Bane, learned AGP for the Respondent- State, Mr. Ashutosh Wani, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and Mr. Ashwin Kapadnis learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 (legal representatives of Pushpa Mangal Bhoir)

2. This Petition challenges the Order dated 31 December 2021 (Exhibit D at pages 41 to 48) made by the Competent Authority and Sub Divisional Officer, Kalyan (Respondent No.1).

3. At the outset, Mr. Killedar and Mr. Kapadnis submit that the impugned order dated 31 December 2021 was made inter alia against Pushpa Mangal Bhoir, who had already expired in 1994. The legal representatives of Pushpa Bhoir were neither brought on record nor issued any notice before the impugned order was made. On this ground, they submit that the impugned order is a nullity. They rely on N. Jayaram Reddy and Another vs. Revenue Divisional officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool , (1979) 3 SCC 578 to support this argument.

4. Mr Killedar and Mr Kapadnis further point out that the impugned order, in any event, proceeds on the basis that the sisters have no right in the co-coparcenary property. They submit that this is a complete misconception and in terms of the law and decided cases, the sisters have an equal right in the co-parcenary property. They submit that on this ground also the impugned order warrants interference.

5. Ms Bane, the learned AGP, submits that the Competent Authority can determine the compensation entitlement under the Scheme of the National Highways Act . However, in terms of Section 3H (4), if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. She submitted that the impugned order is consistent with the provisions of Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act . She relied on Vinod Kumar and others Vs. District Magistrate, Mau and ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 787 and Sojar Vs. Krishnath and others ., 2025 SCC Online Bom 307 to support her arguments.

6. Ms. Bane and Mr. Ashutosh Wani submitted that the impugned order is not only against Pushpa Bhoir but against several parties who were duly heard. They submitted that the estate was well represented by others interested in the acquired properties. They pointed out that the legal representatives of Pushpa Bhoir have not filed any Petition to challenge the impugned order. Still, they are merely supporting this Petition which is instituted by Baliram Gaikar, who was very much alive and heard when the impugned order was made.

7. Ms. Bane and Mr. Ashutosh Wani submit that the impugned order promotes substantial justice, and even if this order is set aside to grant the legal representatives of Pushpa Bhoir another opportunity, the Competent Authority would have no option but to refer the apportionment dispute to the District Court which is precisely what the impugned order has done. Accordingly, they submit that this Court should not interfere with the impugned order based on the technicalities now cited by the Petitioners in exercising its equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

8. The rival contentions now fall for our termination.

9. The Scheme of Section 3H of the National Highways Act is discussed in Sojar Vs. Krishnath (supra) and Vinod Kumar (supra).

10. Paragraph 27 of Sojar (supra) is transcribed below for the convenience of reference: -

In Vinod Kumar (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the scheme of the NH Act with special emphasis on Sections 3G and 3H in paragraph 23, which reads as follows: -

“23 The scheme of the Act 1956 and the statutory provisions referred to above makes it very clear that once any land is acquired under the Act 1956, the compe