Advocates:
['Chapalgaonkar S G', 'DHANURE BRAMHANAND M', '', 'MANORKAR DEEPAK S', 'R NOS SERVED', 'As per Order dt', 'R No Deleted', 'AGP', 'COPY SERVED ON GP AND UOI']

- 1 -

wp5064.22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 5064 OF 2022

Kishor Uttamchand Oswal

age 64 years, occ. Business

r/o B-703, Anup[am, Gas Work Lane

Lalbaugh, Mumbai 400 012.

Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Government of India

(Union of India)

Through Deputy Secretary

Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highway

New Delhi

2.

The State of Maharashtra

}

Deleted vide Court

Through district Collector, Dhule

}

order dated

Offce of District Collectorate

}

05.05.2022

Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

}

3.

The District Collector, Dhule

Offce of District Collectorate

Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

4.

The Competent Authroity

National Highway Tribunal &

Special Land Acquisition Offcer (No. 2)

Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

5.

The Project Director,

The National Highways Authority of India

R/o Saptashrungi, A.S.B. 43,

Ashwini Nagar, CIDCO, Nashik – 9

Dist. Nashik.

Respondents

Mr. S. G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. S. N. Morampalle, AGP for respondent/State.

Mr. B. M. Dhanure, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 4.

- 2 -

wp5064.22.odt

Mr. D. M. Manorkar, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

CORAM : M.G. Sewlikar, J.

DATE : 23^rd AUGUST, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.

By consent of the parties, heard fnally at the stage of

admission.

3.

The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the owner of

the land Survey no. 130 situated at Devpur, Dist. Dhule. On 2^nd May,

2011, award under Section 3G of National Highways Act was passed.

As per the award, 3300 sq. mtrs. land was acquired from Survey No.

130. Notice dated 12^th October, 2011, of handing over possession was

issued to the petitioner. On 12^th October, 2021, petitioner was issued

notice calling upon him to deposit amount of Rs. 97,45,000/- on the

ground that the land of 1351 sq. mtrs was acquired for the road and

the remaining land was acquired for service road for which

compensation was not payable. The total compensation paid was Rs.

1,65,00,000/-. The compensation for 1351 sq. mtrs. land comes to

- 3 -

wp5064.22.odt

Rs. 67,55,000/-. Petitioner deposited remaining amount of

Rs. 97,45,000/- with the competent authority under protest.

4.

Petitioner, thereafter, fled arbitration application. The

Divisional Commissioner, Nasik, was appointed as an Arbitrator.

Respondent No. 5 caused appearance before the Arbitrator. The

arbitration proceedings are still pending.

5.

On 10^th September, 2012, petitioner fled application for

amendment. By this amendment application, petitioner sought

amendment in paragraph No. 1 of the arbitration application.

According to the petitioner, the area mentioned in paragraph No. 1 is

1351 sq. mtrs. It ought to have been 3300 sq. mtrs. The petitioner

also sought amendment regarding enhancement of amount of

compensation. By this amendment application, the petitioner

claimed compensation at enhanced rate of Rs. 1,500/- per sq. mtrs.

6.

It appears that respondent No. 5 did not fle say to the

application till the year 2022. In the year 2022, respondent No. 5

fled say to the application for amendment.

- 4 -

wp5064.22.odt

7.

The learned Arbitrator allowed the amendment so far as

enhancement in compensation is concerned but rejected the

amendment in respect of correction of area. The learned Arbitrator,

while rejecting the application, made following observations :

In this regard, it is important to see the

observation of Hon. Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No. 5567/2008 decided on 09/09/2008 which is as

under :

“13.

Therefore, it is clear from the above that by way

of an amendment, the appellants are now completely

making out a new case by alleging that the

appellants were incurring damages on continuous

basis, which is contrary to the pleadings made in the

written statement and the counter claim which has

already been stated hereinabove.”

In the present case, the arbitral application has

been fle