- Case
- M/S. MEHTA AND CO. THR. ITS PARTNER MR. ADARSH VARMA v. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI THR. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER (Bombay High Court, 08-04-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Maharashtra Highways Act, National Highways Act, Right to Information Act.
Facts: Petitioners claimed interest in land acquired under the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 (MHA), objecting to compensation payment to Respondents 3-6, citing a pending civil suit challenging the property transfer to them. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) disbursed Rs. 56.26 Crores to Respondents 3-6 without addressing the petitioners' objections and denied RTI information regarding the same.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking to quash the acquisition proceedings and recover the disbursed compensation, alleging the LAO acted illegally and arbitrarily.
Issue: Did the LAO act legally in disbursing compensation to Respondents 3-6 without addressing the Petitioners' objections and in denying RTI information, especially given the pending civil suit and the provisions of Section 19C of the MHA regarding apportionment disputes?
Holding: No, the LAO's actions were illegal and ultra vires. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the apportionment of compensation and directing Respondents 3-6 to refund the amount. The LAO was directed to refer the apportionment dispute to the Principal Civil Court.
Reasoning: The Court found that the LAO violated Section 19C of the MHA by adjudicating an apportionment dispute, which should have been referred to the Principal Civil Court. The LAO's haste in disbursing the compensation and denying RTI information indicated legal malafides. The Court relied on precedents, including Vinod Kumar, which established that disputes regarding apportionment must be resolved by the civil court, not the land acquisition officer. The court also directed disciplinary proceedings against the then LAO, Rahul Mundke, for his conduct.
