Advocates:
['Koshti P S', 'BHOSLE R B', '', 'MANORKAR DEEPAK S', 'COPY SERVED ON R B BHOSALE']

1 WP / 13722 /2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 13722 OF 2021

1. Vikas S/o. Mahadev Somwanshi,

Age : 40 years, Occu. Agri.,

R/o. Arni, Kanegaon, Tq. Lohara,

Dist. Osmanabad

2. Chandrasekhar S/o Mahadev Somwanshi,

Age : 32 years, Occ. Agri.,

R/o. Arni, Kanegaon, Tq. Lohara,

Dist. Osmanabad

.. PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1. The Union of India

2. The Project Director,

National Highways Authority of India,

Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,

Government of India,

Project Implementation Unit, Nanded,

Bharadwaj, Venkatadri Nagar,

Near Ayodhya Nagari, Malegaon Road,

Taroda (Kh.), Nanded – 431 605.

3. The Competent Authority &

Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition)

Manjra Project, Osmanabad

.. RESPONDENTS

...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Koshti P.S.

Advocate for the respondents 1 and 3 : Mr. R.B. Bhosale

Advocate for the respondent no. 2 : Mr. D.S. Manorkar

...

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL &

Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE

: 24 NOVEMBER 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :

Heard both the sides finally.

2 WP / 13722 /2021

2.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that in spite of

their land having been acquired for the widening of the national

highway and some award has been passed, they have not been paid

the compensation.

4.

Learned advocate for the respondent – competent

authority, referring to the affidavit-in-reply, would submit that it is a

matter of record that subsequent to the passing of the award,

re-measurement was undertaken and some portion of the property

being claimed by the petitioners has been found to be affected.

However, he submits that the competent authority does not have the

power and jurisdiction to modify or review the order. He would further

submit that unless the acquiring body i.e. National Highway Authority

deposits the money, nothing can be paid to the petitioners.

5.

Learned advocate Mr. Manorkar, referring to the affidavit-

in-reply submits that it is a matter of law that the competent authority

does not have any power to modify the award. If at all the

petitioners’ claim is to be considered, that can happen only if they

approach and invoke the powers under section 3H(4) of the National

Highways Act, 1956, whereupon the competent authority would be

under statutory obligation to make a reference as contemplated therein

3 WP / 13722 /2021

to a civil Court and the entitlement of the petitioners to claim

compensation would thereafter depend upon the decision of the civil

Court.

He also cites the order passed by this Court in writ petition

no. 11076 of 2021 in the matter of Amol Shivji Bhadre Vs. State of

Maharashtra and another dated 06-10-2022 and submits that in

similar set of facts, this Court had permitted the petitioner therein to

follow the afore-mentioned course, referring to the decision of this

Court in the matter of Arun Trimbakrao Lohkare Vs. State of

Maharashtra (writ petition no. 1949 of 2017 dated 29 June 2017).

6.

Certainly, entitlement or otherwise of an individual to have

compensation is a matter which would fall squarely under section 3H(4)

of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the competent authority would

be under an obligation to make a reference to the civil Court. It is only

thereafter that civil Court can go into and decide the disputed question

of fact, as to whether the petitioners are owners of the land which they

claim have been acquired by the respondents.

7.

We dispose of the writ petition by directi