The competent authority under the National Highways Act lacks jurisdiction to decide apportionment disputes, which must be referred to the Principal Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

(M. S. Sonak, J.)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs by instituting this Petition.

“(A.) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling the impugned Order dt. 21/12/2023 passed by Respondent No. 4 i.e. Competent Authority, Land Acquisition Authority cum Deputy Collector No. 11, Solapur in Land Acquisition Case No. 11/Kavi/RR/1281/2023.

(B.) This Hon’ble Court be please to issue writ of mandamus or writ in nature of mandamus or issue any appropriate writ or order directing Respondent No.4 to refer the dispute together with the amount determined by the competent authority to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction of District Solapur i.e. District Court, Solapur”

4. Mr Rajepandhare, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that under the scheme of the National Highways Act, 1956 (the NH Act), the competent authority has no right or jurisdiction as to the apportionment of compensation or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable. The competent authority is obliged to refer such dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the acquired land is situated. He submitted that this position is settled by a series of decisions of this Court and now, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar and Others Vs District Magistrate, Mau and Others, 2023 LiveLaw SC 511.

5. Mr Rajepandhare submitted that despite the clear legal position as stated above and the binding precedents on the subject, the competent authority, by the impugned order dated 21 December 2023 has not only rejected the Petitioner’s claim for apportionment of compensation but, in high-handed manner, proceeded to disburse the compensation for the acquired land in which the Petitioner had an interest as co- owner, in favour of the Petitioner’s brothers. He submitted that the impugned order dated 21 December 2023 is ex-facie without jurisdiction, null and void. He submitted that even the payments made by the competent authority, based on the impugned order, were without the authority of law. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order dated 21 December 2023 must be set aside, and the compensation amount disbursed to the Respondents 1 to 3 must be recalled and directed to be deposited in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction so that the Civil Court can decide the issues of apportionment, etc.

6. Mr Rajepandhare referred to the family tree/genealogy. He submitted that the Petitioner was a sister of Respondents 1 to 3. He submitted that these Respondents are illegally denying the Petitioner her compensation share. He submitted that the competent authority was not justified in deciding issues of title and apportionment. Accordingly, Mr Rajepandhare submitted that the Rule in this Petition be made absolute. He relied on Arun s/o Trimbakrao Lokare Vs State of Maharashtra and others, 2017(6) Mh.L.J., Rajaram Waman Rane and Others Vs Ramkrishna Mahadev Rane and Others, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 6437, Pandurang Balu Pujare and Anr Vs The Competent Authority and Sub- Divisional Officer and Ors, WP/10577/2024 decided on 10 January 2025, Shriram R. Deshprabhu Vs State of Goa and Ors and connected matters, 2023(2) ALL MR 72 and Ashok More Vs Union of India & Ors, 2017(2) ALL MR 792 .

7. Mr Deolekar the learned AGP for the 4th Respondent defended the impugned order by submitting that the competent authority had the jurisdiction to determine the issue of entitlement of compensation or shares of compensation under Section 3H(4) of the NH Act. He submitted that the Petitioner’s belated claim lacked prima facie merit. He submitted that the impugned order discusses the issue of allot