Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. Sonak, Jitendra Jain, JJ.
Gramastha Mandal Kundevahal Through Panchpudhari – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
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.
3. In brief, the petitioners assert their interest in the subject property acquired under the Maharashtra Highways Act of 1955 [MHA]. Even before the acquisition proceedings began in 2022, the petitioners had filed a suit against Respondents 3 to 6 concerning this property. The petitioners submitted their objections regarding the payment of compensation to Respondents 3 to 6 before the Land Acquisition Officer -R2 [LAO] within the specified period.However, without considering these objections and in violation of all legal procedures and precedents, the LAO hastily apportioned and disbursed the total compensation of Rs 56.26 Crores to Respondents 3 to 6. The LAO even denied the petitioners information regarding these ultra vires actions and subsequently issued an order rejecting the petitioners' objections to the apportionment. Thus, this Petition.
4. The Petitioners have sought the following substantive reliefs in this petition: -
a) to call for entire record and proceedings in respect of acquis
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 Land Acquisition Officer lacks jurisdiction to decide disputes over compensation apportionment, which must be referred to the Principal Civil Court for resolution.
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.
The competent authority lacks jurisdiction to decide compensation apportionment disputes under the National Highways Act, which must be referred to the Principal Civil Court.
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.
Point of Law : Respondents, therefore, cannot retain the amounts received by them. Instead, they will have to deposit these amounts before the Reference 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....
Point of Law : It is a settled principle of interpretation of statute that the provisions of any statute are to be interpreted to give effect to each of them to the extent possible without giving any....
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
