The competent authority lacks jurisdiction to decide disputes over compensation disbursement and must refer such matters to the Principal Civil Court as mandated by the National Highways Act.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner raises an exception to the order rendered by the competent authority in relation to an objection which was presented by the petitioner herein claiming entitlement to the amount of apportionment in relation to the subject matter viz. agricultural land bearing Gat No.18/2. Late Piraji Bhiwaji Ingole i.e. father of petitioner herein was declared as a tenant in respect of the subject land. There is a chequered history of litigation between the litigating sides vis-a-vis amongst the legal heirs of tenant Piraji which is evident from the filing of Regular Civil Suit No.53/1998 was filed for declaration and injunction by the tenant Piraji against Ratnabai Naik to whom the respondent No.4 has succeeded. The said suit has been decreed with further declaration that the predecessor of respondent No.4 is not entitled to execute sale-deed of suit properties in favour of any person other than the tenant. As such, was restrained from executing sale-deed or transferring the subject property in any manner in favour of any person other than the tenant Piraji.

3. Apart from the decree in the aforestated suit, Regular Civil Suit No.44/2001 presented by Piraji and other tenants for declaration and injunction is decreed in the year 2003. Wherein, the sale transactions executed by the predecessor of respondent No.4, Ratnabai were also questioned. Coupled with filing of aforesaid two suits even Regular Civil Suit No.53/2015 was filed by one of the legal representatives of original tenant Piraji, namely, Narayan Piraji Ingole Vs. Vitthal Piraji Ingole for declaration and mandatory injunction for partition and separate possession along with mesne profits, however, the said suit was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit. Equally, Regular Civil Suit No.105/2015 which is presented by Narayan s/o Piraji one of the legal representatives of tenant Piraji is pending and also during pendency of the said suit, Regular Civil Suit No.42/2019 for injunction was presented, however, same is dismissed in default. Thus, the land in question is subject matter of proceeding those are pending between the persons interested therein.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the subject land is acquired for National Highway No.161 to the extent 0.6284 Hectares out of total 5.73 hectares. As such, the petitioner, the legal representatives of original tenant Piraji Ingole, presented objection before the competent authority in relation to disbursement of the compensation amount and eventually requested for not to disburse the same.

5. While presenting the objection, petitioner contended that the subject land was in possession of father Piraji Ingole and placed on record the succession certificate and the order declaring father Piraji Ingole as lawful tenant of the year 1989. Apart from placing the aforesaid documents in the shape of tenancy rights the order of permanent injunction passed by the competent Civil Court was also placed on record. A specific reference was made to the order of injunction in Regular Civil Suit No.58/1998. It was further submitted before the competent authority that in the wake of declaration of tenancy in favour of Piraji to whom the petitioner along with other legal representatives have succeeded and are in possession of the land, however, the mutation entries in the 7/12 extract were not effected. As such, requested not to disburse the compensation of the land.