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

JUDGMENT :

MS 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 any event, by our order dated 21 March 2025, we had posted this matter on 16 April 2025 at 2.30 pm for final disposal. Even directions were issued to complete the pleadings by 9 April 2025.

4. The State Government and Mr Satish Dhumal, the Competent Authority, have filed their affidavits in this matter. Respondents 5 and 6 have not filed any affidavits despite the opportunity.

5. In addition to the affidavit, a compilation of documents was also tendered across the bar on behalf of Mr Satish Dhumal, and the same was taken on record.

6. The Petitioners challenge the competent authority’s order dated 25 April 2022 apportioning and disbursing the compensation amount for the subject property in favour of Respondents 5 and 6.

7. This Petition was instituted on 4 May 2022, and an interim order was obtained on 6 May 2022. However, Mr Satish Dhumal, the then competent authority, who was impleaded in this Petition in person, has filed an affidavit to say that the compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,21,122/- was disbursed to Respondents 5 and 6 on 4 May 2022 itself. The affidavit states that the intimation from the Petitioners’ Advocate about the institution of this Petition was received by email only at 9.33 pm on 4 May 2022. The affidavit proceeds to state that on 6 May 2022, Mr Satish Dhumal wrote to the bank for freezing the bank accounts of Respondents 5 and 6. However, the bank stated that the Respondents 5 and 6 withdrew the amount on 5 May 2022.

8. The subject property in this case is Gat No. 1178, admeasuring 1286 Sq. Mtrs. At village Barad, Taluka Phaltan, District Satara. The Petitioners claim to have constructed a house bearing Gram Panchayat Property No. 1440 admeasuring 154.78 Sq. Mtrs on the subject property. The Petitioners claim that their father purchased this property on 30 October 1986 and their names were also recorded in the revenue records. There was some dispute with Respondents 5 and 6 and therefore, the Petitioners filed proceedings before the revenue authorities and ultimately filed Regular Civil Suit No. 59 of 2022 before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Phaltan for a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. Some proceedings were also filed for succession (heirship). There is a reference to obtaining some interim reliefs and the vacation of such interim reliefs.

9. The subject property became the subject matter of acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 (NHA). Accordingly, the Petitioners and Respondents 5 and 6 raised their claim before the competent authority regarding the compensation payable. By impugned order dated 25 April 2022, Mr Satish Dhumal, the then competent authority, took it upon himself to decide not only the issue of entitlement but also the issue of apportionment and held that compensation of over Rs 1 Crore must be paid to Respondents 5 and 6.

10. Mr Satish Dhumal, on 4 May 2022 disbursed this amount of over Rs 1 Crores to Respondents 5 and 6. In the affidavit, it is claimed by Mr Satish Dhumal that he came to know about the institution of Writ Petition by the Petitioners only on 5 May 2022, by which time the amount had already been disbursed. After interim relief was granted by this Court, Mr Satish Dhumal, claims to have written to the bank to freeze the amount. Mr Satish Dhumal has stated that before the amount was disbursed, an undertaking was obtained from Respondents 5 and 6 to bring back this amount should any claims arise in respect of this amount.

11. In the affidavit filed by Mr Satish Dhumal an apology is tendered. Mr Chavan, the learned Senior Advocate for Mr Dhumal, quite reasonably admitted that Mr Satish Dhumal may have erred in law in deciding the apportionment dispute or disbursing the amount to Respondents 5 and 6. Still, Mr Chavan maintained that Mr Dhumal’s actio