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.

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 acquisition of the land bearing Survey No.35, Hissa No.0, lying, being and situate at Village Kundevahal, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad from the file of the Respondent No.2;

b) to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent No.2 to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, Panvel, Alibaug under Section 19(C)(4) of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955;

c) to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent No.2 to take forthwith steps to recover the amount of Rs.52 crores from the Respondent Nos.3 to 6;

d) to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 to deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.52 crores either in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel before whom Special Civil Suit No.13 of 2018 is pending or in the Court of Principal Civil Court, Panvel, Alibaug;

e) to take necessary and suitable action against the Respondent No.2 in respect of his malafide, illegal and arbitrary action in not deciding the objection dated 5.9.2023 and without deciding the same disbursing the amount of compensation of Rs.52 crores to the Respondent Nos.3 to 6;

f) to direct the Respondent No. 1 to appoint necessary Committee to conduct the Inquiry against the Respondent No. 2 in respect of his malafide, illegal and arbitrary action in disbursing the amount of compensation of Rs.52 crores to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 without deciding the objection of the Petitioners dated 5.9.2023;

5. Mr Suryawanshi learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that there was no justification for the LAO to sit over the objections filed by the Petitioners on 5 September 2023 for almost six months, i.e., up to 18 March 2024. In any event, LAO should have decided on the Petitioner’s objections on 18 April 2024 instead of issuing a consent award based on the consent of Respondents 3 to 6 despite the Petitioner's serious objections and pendency of the Civil Suit against such Respondent concerning the subject property. He submitted that on 18 March 2024, LAO not only issued the consent award but executed the agreement and ordered the release of Rs. 56.26 Crores to Respondents 3 to 6. R-2 pursued the matter and sought to ensure that the bank paid this amount to Respondents 3 to 6 by 22 March 2024.

6. Mr Suryavanshi submitted that this action was or in any event vitiated by legal malafides apart from being contrary to the provisions of Section 19C of the MHA and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar & Ors Vs District Magistrate, Mau & Ors, (2023) SCC OnLine 787 and Sojar @ Rukminibai W/o Hari Mule Vs Krishnath @ Krishna S/o Gopal Tate and Ors, (2025) SCC OnLine Bom 307. He submitted that several decisions of this Court took similar views, and still R-2, ignoring all such decisions, adjudicated the