19-WP-8072-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8072 OF 2024 Sharada Narhari Mali ...Petitioner. Versus The Competent Authority Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) No.6, Kolhapur and Others ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Ishaan Kapse for the Petitioner. Mr. R. P. Kadam, ‘B’ Panel Counsel, for the Respondents-State. Ms. Divya A. Pawar Patil (Through VC) with Ms. Trupti T. Padekar & Ms. Manasa M. Koshi, for the Respondent No.3. Mr. Rishikesh A. Mohite, for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : September 16, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent No.1 to recall the orders/communications dated 27th November 2023 to 29th November 2023, whereby the Petitioner's account was frozen. 2. Briely stated, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner's father owned Gat No.851 at District Kolhapur and after the demise of her father, the property was mutated in the name of the Petitioner and her two brothers, i.e., Respondent Nos.4 and 5. The subject property came to be acquired and notiication was issued under Section 3G(1) of the Gaikwad RD 1 of 6 19-WP-8072-2024.doc National Highways Act, 1956. After acquisition, the compensation amount was disbursed to the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and possession of land was taken. After almost one year of completion of acquisition, on 3rd November 2023, the Respondent No.4 iled a complaint with the Respondent No.1 stating that the Petitioner was not a co-owner of the acquired property, as she had released her share in the year 1993. Without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, the Respondent No.1 ordered the Petitioner's bank to freeze the amount equivalent to the compensation amount in the bank account not only of the Petitioner, but also of her family members. Hence, the present petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the issue as regards the release deed will have to be agitated in an appropriate Court of law and the Respondent No.1, who was the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition), did not have any power to freeze the Petitioner's and her family member’s account. He submits that the disbursement had taken place in accordance with law and after the period of one year, upon a complaint made by Respondent No. 4, the action initiated by the Respondent No. 1 is patently illegal. He would further submit that before issuing the communications to the respective banks, no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner and therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. Gaikwad RD 2 of 6 19-WP-8072-2024.doc 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 would submit that the Petitioner had relinquished her right in the subject property and therefore was not entitled to compensation. He submits that as compensation was wrongly paid, this Court ought to direct the Petitioner to deposit the compensation in this Court. Drawing support from the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Suvarna Vasant Bhise & Ors. v. National Highways Authority of India & Ors,1 he would contend that this Court has held that the Competent Authority's action of hurriedly disbursing the compensation amount is patently illegal and that, where the Land Acquisition Oicer wrongfully pays the compensation, the Writ Court must recall such amount from such parties. 5. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. The Land Acquisition Oicer had issued notices to the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.4 and 5 intimating them about compensation determined and about disbursement in the year 2022. There was no objection raised by Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the disbursement of compensation to the Petitioner. The Petitioner as well as the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 received compensation for the acquired property and after a period of one year, a complaint was made to the Respondent No. 1 that the Petitioner was not entitled to her share of 1 Writ Petition No.5788 of 2022 Dtd. 16th April 2025. Gaikwad RD 3 of 6 19-WP-8072-2024.doc compensation, as she had executed a memorandum of release in the year 1993. No statutory provision is demonstrated to empower the Respondent No.1, who is the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition), to freeze the accounts of the Petitioner and her family members. The communications were issued directly to the banks without issuing any notice to the Petitioner. The compensation amount was disbursed by the Competent Authority presumably in accordance with law. In event there was any objection to the disbursement, the objection should have been raised at the appropriate time, so that the Competent Authority could have exercised the powers under Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 and referred the dispute to the Civil Court. After a period of almost one year, the complaint was made and was promptly acted upon by the Respondent No. 1. The complaint was based on a purported Memorandum of Release of the year 1993. The Respondent No.1 is not the authority to adjudicate the issue of genuineness or authenticity of the Memorandum of Release and ought to have directed the parties to the Civil Court. The lis, if any, now is between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.1 did not have any authority to pass the impugned communications. 7. The contention that the Writ Court must recall the amount wrongly paid, from the party, irstly, would require a determination on the authenticity of the release deed, which cannot be done in writ Gaikwad RD 4 of 6 19-WP-8072-2024.doc jurisdiction, and secondly, the petition has been iled by the Petitioner assailing the patently illegal act of freezing the petitioner's accounts and that of her family members, in which the Respondent No.4 cannot seek the relief. The decision in the case of Suvarna Vasant Bhise (supra) challenged the Competent Authority's order apportioning and disbursing the compensation amount. In that case, the petition was iled by the Objectors and the relief was claimed. In the present case, no action has been taken by the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, apart from approaching the Respondent No.1, who did not have any authority to freeze the Petitioner’s and her family member’s accounts. The petition assails only the orders of freezing of the Petitioner's accounts, and by interim order dated 26th August 2025, the accounts came to be de- freezed. 8. As limited relief is sought of de-freezing of the accounts and there is no authority, demonstrated in the Respondent No.1 to freeze the accounts of the Petitioner and her family members, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 9. Needless to clarify that it is open for the Respondent No. 1 to adopt all proceedings, as permissible in law for seeking recall of the amount, which according to the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 has been illegally disbursed to the Petitioner. Gaikwad RD 5 of 6 19-WP-8072-2024.doc 10. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Gaikwad RD 6 of 6 RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date: 2026.09.17 10:49:27 +0530