- Case
- BHASKAR MAHIPAT PAVALE v. LALITA GAJANAN CHINCHAWADE AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 26-03-2025)
- Law
- Code of Civil Procedure, Land Acquisition Act, Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, National Highways Act, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act.
Facts: The Petitioner challenged an order by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) dismissing objections to the apportionment of compensation for land acquired under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (MIDC Act). The SDO directed disbursement of the compensation amount to some respondents upon furnishing an indemnity bond, refusing to refer the dispute to the authority under Section 35 of the MIDC Act. The Petitioner had filed a civil suit in 2019 claiming an interest in the property.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the SDO's order. The High Court considered arguments from all parties, including the Advocate General for the State, and reviewed relevant provisions of the MIDC Act and precedents from the Supreme Court and other High Courts.
Issue: Did the SDO err in dismissing the Petitioner's objections and directing disbursement of compensation without referring the apportionment dispute to the authority under Section 35 of the MIDC Act? Does the SDO have the power to decide on the apportionment of compensation when there is a dispute between the parties?
Holding: Yes, the SDO's order was set aside. The High Court directed the SDO to refer the apportionment dispute to the authority under Section 35 of the MIDC Act.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 35 of the MIDC Act, while using the word "may," obligates the Collector to refer apportionment disputes to the authority unless there are strong reasons not to do so. The Court emphasized that apportionment of compensation is essentially a judicial function best undertaken by courts or authorities comprising judicially trained persons. The SDO's reliance on revenue records and the absence of an injunction order from the civil court were deemed irrelevant considerations. The Court cited Vinod Kumar (supra) to highlight the distinction between determining compensation and apportioning it, stating that the latter is the domain of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The Court also noted the unhealthy trend of Land Acquisition Officers usurping the jurisdiction of the Courts by deciding apportionment disputes themselves.
