905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2000 OF 2026 Malojirao Vinayakrao Nimbalkar Deceased Thr. Lrs. Madhubala Malojirao Nimbalkar And Ors. VERSUS Union Of India Thr. The Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways And Ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1999 OF 2026 Malojirao Vinayakrao Nimbalkar Deceased Thr. Lrs. Madhubala Malojirao Nimbalkar And Ors. VERSUS Union Of India Thr. The Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways And Ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1991 OF 2026 Malojirao Vinayakrao Nimbalkar Deceased Thr Legal Heirs And Ors. VERSUS Union Of India Thr. The Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways And Ors. Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Viraj Patil, advocate for petitioners Mr. Vijay Killedar a/w Mr. Shivraj Jagdale, a/w Mr. Rahul Rote, advocate for respondent no. 1 Mr. Manoj Patil, advocate for respondent no. 5, 7 to 11 Mr. Satyajeet Rajeshirke, advocate for respondent no. 6 Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel AGP for respondent-state in WP 2000/2026 Mr. V. M. Mali AGP for the State in WP 1999/2026 Ms. T. J. Kapre, AGP for the State in WP 1991/2026 1 of 10 905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, & NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 17th JUNE, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Vijay Killedar, advocate for respondent no. 1, Mr. Manoj Patil, advocate for respondent no. 5, 7 to 11, Mr. Satyajeet Rajeshirke, advocate for respondent no. 6 and respective AGP in respective Writ Petitions. 2. The challenge in the present Writ Petitions is to the order of rejection passed by the competent authority under the provisions of Section 3H(4) of The National Highways Act, 1956 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) rejecting the application of the petitioners for referring the dispute for apportionment/entitlement/partition with regard to property that has been acquired under the Said Act to the Civil Court. 3. Learned senior advocate Mr. Shah impresses upon the Court that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and others Vs. District Magistrate, Mau and others1, the competent authority does not have the jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate or pass such an order rejecting the reference 1 (2023) 19 Supreme Court Cases 126 2 of 10 905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc to the Civil Court in the event if dispute is raised. 4. Mr. Killedar, learned advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1 in his usual fair mindedness tenders a copy of the decision and citation of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar to the Court and joins the submission advanced by the Mr. Shah. Mr. Manoj Patil, learned advocate also endorses the submissions made by Mr. Shah and Mr. Killedar. Equally Mr. Kalel, the learned AGP also agrees with the same. 5. The antagonist in the present matter is Respondent No. 6 represented by Mr. Rajeshirke. The disputes with regard to entitlement are pending between the parties in the Civil Court. He would persuade the Court to consider the fact that in the previous round of litigation, a similar question had arisen but despite pendency of dispute, the amounts were already disbursed to the Respondent No. 6 to the exclusion of the petitioners and to her family members. However, he also in his usual fair mindedness apprises the Court that partition suit is pending between the parties wherein directions are passed for expeditious disposal of the said partition suit before the Civil Court. He would submit that the said suit is at the stage of recording of evidence and it would ultimately 3 of 10 905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc determine the substantive entitlement of the parties. However, he would disagree with one submission made on behalf of the petitioners. He would submit that not only in the previous round of litigation, but even with regard to the cause of action in the present proceedings, the amounts have already been disbursed by the competent authority to the Respondent No. 6. He says so on instructions received by him in the Court. This is strongly refuted by Mr. Shah, as according to his instructions in the present lis, the amounts are still lying with the Competent Authority and are not yet disbursed. In this view of the matter, the Court will have to therefore, step in. 6. After perusing the papers and the decision in the case of Vinod Kumar, the impugned order is prima facie not sustainable and is therefore, quashed and set aside. Needless to state that the application made by the petitioners for reference to the Civil Court in view of the dispute raised is directed to be referred to the Civil Court by the competent authority forthwith. Adhering to the submissions made by Mr. Rajeshirke and without passing any decision on merits or looking into the matter, it is further directed that, if and only if, the amounts are not disbursed (which is the 4 of 10 905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc contention of the petitioners) with regard to the cause of action in the present petition by the competent authority, then the said amounts which are held by the competent authority will be transferred to the Civil Court where the partition suit is pending or the apportionment reference proceedings as applicable. However, if Mr. Rajeshirke is right in his contention and if Respondent No. 6 has already received the amounts then in that case it shall be open to parties to make appropriate application before the Civil Court in accordance with law in the pending partition suit or the reference proceedings and if any such application is made, the Court shall determine the same, after hearing all the parties expeditiously. 7. All contentions of the parties are otherwise expressly kept open. The Writ Petitions stand allowed and disposed of in the above terms. 8. We are impelled to pass the above order and directions and reiterate the guidelines and directions laid down by this Court in the case of Sojar Vs. Krishnath and Others2. 9. For the sake of convenience and reference, the said guidelines are reiterated which are reproduced herein below: “56. Therefore, we direct the Revenue Secretary to 2 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 307 5 of 10 905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc circulate copies of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar case1, judgment and order in Arun case2 and copies of the present judgment and order to the Competent Authorities appointed under the NH Act so that this this feigned excuse of ignorance of the law is not available to the officials. Bona fide actions or bona fide views on legal issues by quasi-judicial or statutory authorities can be protected even if ultimately such actions or viewpoints are not accepted by the courts. However, extending such benevolent immunity to matters where bonafide is suspect or gross and perhaps deliberate deviation from the legal provisions or binding precedents would be counterproductive. This would only encourage errant officials from breaching the law with impunity for reasons that are not far to seek. 62. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition by making the following order: (a) The impugned order dated 21-12-2023 is quashed and set aside. (b) Instead of directing Respondents 1 to 3 to deposit the entire compensation received by them under the impugned order dated 21-12-2023, said Respondents 1 to 3, consistent with their statement, are directed to deposit the amount of Rs 13,30,000 in the court of 6 of 10 905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc District Judge, Solapur within two months from today and file a compliance report in this Court on or before 22-4-2025. A copy of this must be furnished to the petitioner in advance. (c) If Respondents 1 to 3 fail to deposit the above amount before the District Court, Solapur and fail to file the compliance report with proof of such deposit, Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation approximating to Rs 80,00,000 received by them under the impugned order dated 21-12-2023, latest by 9-5-2025 in this Court together with interest thereon at the rate of 7 per cent per ammum This would be without prejudice to initiating contempt proceedings against Respondents 1 to 3 for breaching the undertaking given to this Court, based upon which this Court has permitted Respondents 1 to 3 to deposit only the amount of Rs 13,30,000 instead of the entire amount received under the order dated 21-12-2023. (d) The competent authority is directed to refer the apportionment dispute between the petitioner and Respondents 1 to 3 regarding the compensation for the entire acquired property, to the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction i.e. District Court at Solapur, within two months from today and file a compliance report in this Court at the latest by 22-4-2025. Along with this reference, the competent authority must also 7 of 10 905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc deposit an amount of Rs 5,07,001, being compensation towards Gat No. 361, in the District Court at Solapur. (e) Upon deposit of the above amount of Rs 13,30,000 by Respondents 1 to 3, the District Court, Solapur, must allow the petitioner to withdraw such amount upon furnishing an undertaking that such withdrawal would abide by the final orders in reference of the apportionment dispute. The undertaking should State that the petitioner would bring back this amount together with interest as shall be determined by the District Court should the District Court decide that the petitioner is not entitled to this amount. (f) The District Court at Solapur must dispose of the apportionment dispute relating to the acquired properties i.e. bearing Gat Nos. 360, 361, 362 and 363 at Manegaon, Barshi, Solapur, as expeditiously as possible after giving all parties full opportunity in support of their respective versions. (g) This Court has not decided on the merits of the rival claims for apportionment. Any observations in this judgment and order are only prima facie or tentative. Therefore, the District Court, Solapur, should decide the apportionment reference uninfluenced by such observations but strictly following law and the evidence that the parties would render before it. (h) The Revenue Secretary, the Government of Maharashtra and the National Highways Authorities 8 of 10 905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc must circulate copies of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar case1 and of this Court in Ashok More case6 and this judgment and order to the competent authorities, so that at least in future, the Competent Authorities act consistent with the provisions of the NH Act and law laid down in these decisions. If possible, a workshop should be held to apprise the Competent Authorities and other functionaries under the NH Act of the legal position relating to resolving apportionment disputes followed by disbursement of the compensation amount. (i) The Revenue Secretary and responsible officer from the National Highways Authorities must file a compliance report in this Court by 22-4-2025. (j) No cost orders, considering the reasonable approach adopted by Respondents 1 to 3 in offering to deposit the sum of Rs 13,30,000 within two months. (k) The District Court is requested to ascertain from the parties whether some settlement is possible by referring the matter to mediation or otherwise. In short, the District Court to which the reference is made must explore the possibility of the parties settling the matter without a long-drawn contest. (l) All concerned are to act on the authenticated copy of this order.” 10. Copy of this order shall be placed before the Revenue 9 of 10 905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc Secretary of the State by the Government Pleader, Appellate Side. Despite the aforesaid guidelines being in place for the past more than one year, similar orders are repeatedly passed by the Revenue Officers. Revenue Secretary is therefore, directed to ensure that appropriate communication is sent to all Revenue Officers in the State with regard to the present issue so that the ignominy of the parties is redressed and they are not required to approach the Courts in extraordinary jurisdiction time and again. Such litigation also dogs the docket of this Court. It is observed in the aforesaid decision that the Revenue Officers are defying the orders passed by this Court. A similar situation has arisen in the present case. We, therefore, impress upon the Revenue Secretary to ensure that each of the Revenue Officer of the State is circulated the copy of this Judgment to ensure that such dereliction does not happen in future. The reason being, that parties are driven to Court and Court is burdened unnecessarily. 11. Writ Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. [NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.] [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.] Iresh 10 of 10 IRESH MASHAL Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2026.06.19 17:55:23 +0530