1 wp11746.21.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

5 WRIT PETITION NO.11746 OF 2021

LALUBAI ALIAS LATABAI GEMA RATHOD

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale, Advocate for the petitioner;

Mr. A.G. Talhar, A.S.G.I. for respondent nos.1 & 2;

Mr. P.S. Patil, AGP for respondent no.3

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ

AND

MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : October 22, 2021

P.C.

1.

A piece and parcel of land at Talmode, Taluka Omerga, District

Osmanabad has been acquired for the purpose of National Highway No.9

(New 65). The competent authority has determined compensation payable to

the owners, i.e., the respondent nos. 4 to 6. Claiming to be aggrieved by the

amount of compensation determined by the competent authority, such

respondents have raised an objection resulting in the dispute being referred to

an Arbitrator for determination of the amount of compensation.

2.

The petitioner, claiming to be a co-owner of the acquired land, sought to

intervene in the proceedings before the Arbitrator by filing an application dated

9^th March 2020 for intervention/addition of party. It is her claim in the writ

petition that the Arbitrator has refused to accept the application on the ground

that it is not maintainable. We have been informed by Mr. Ingale, learned

advocate appearing for the petitioner that no formal order has been passed by

2 wp11746.21.odt

the Arbitrator. Accordingly, this writ petition has been presented seeking a

direction on the Arbitrator, respondent no.3, to accept the application of the

petitioner for intervention/addition of party.

3.

We have heard Mr. Ingale, and Mr Talhar, learned A.S.G.I. for the

respondent nos.1 and 2.

4.

It is not disputed at the Bar that the petitioner did not raise any

objection in terms of the enabling provision contained in Section 3-C of the

National Highways Act, 1956 (hereafter ‘the Act’). It is further not disputed that

the petitioner did not raise any dispute of the nature referred to in section 3-H

(4) of the Act. Also, the undisputed position is that there is no independent

proceeding pending at the instance of the petitioner for enhancement of

compensation. On the contrary, the petitioner has instituted a civil suit for

partition in respect of the acquired land and such suit is pending.

5.

Given such facts and circumstances, the right that the petitioner claims

of being a co-owner of the acquired land is yet to be determined. Obviously,

the Arbitrator is not required by law to determine the shares of the parties in

the acquired land. His task is to determine whether the amount of

compensation awarded by the competent authority in favour of the respondent

nos. 4 to 6 is just and fair. Although the Arbitrator has not passed a formal

order rejecting the petitioner’s application dated 9^th March 2020, we do not

see any reason to grant relief on this writ petition as prayed for to the

petitioner.

3 wp11746.21.odt

6.

All contentions of the petitioner with regard to her claim of ownership of

the acquired land is left open for being agitated in the civil suit instituted by

her.

7.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

No costs.

[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

amj