J-WP-5964-25 1/7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.5964 OF 2025 1. Suresh Kisan Bhagat, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Retired, R/o Plot No. 52, Near Ambedkar Hall, Urvela Colony, Nagpur …. Petitioner VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Pench Project-2, Nagpur 2. Chief Engineer, MADC, Maharashtra Airport Development Company, VV Building, MIHAN, Khapri, Wardha Road, Nagpur, having its office at Behind Van Bhawan, Near Ramgiri, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 3. Deen Prajahi Sahakari Gruh Nirman Sanstha Ltd. Nagpur, Through its Secretary, Suresh S/o Sukhadeo Adikane, Aged about 72 years, Occ. Retired, R/o Plot No. 7-A, Jayawant Nagar, Nagpur .… Respondents. Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioner. Smt Mrunal Naik, AGP for Advocate for respondent No.1/State. Shri L. Y. Mandeshwar, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : August 11, 2026 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : August 18, 2026 Judgment : Heard. 2026:BHC-NAG:10737 J-WP-5964-25 2/7 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The present petition challenges order dated 08.01.2024 passed below Exhibit-1 in Civil M.A. No.586/2021 by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge, Nagpur, whereby the application preferred by the Petitioner seeking release of compensation attributable to his individual plot came to be rejected. The Petitioner seeks appropriate directions for apportionment and payment of compensation in respect of the plot purchased by him from Respondent No.3, which plot was subsequently acquired by the State Government. 3. The Petitioner is a member of Respondent No.3-Society. The said Society had developed plots on Kh. Nos. 105/1 and 105/4, situated at Mouza Chichbhawan, Tahsil and District Nagpur, and had sold individual plots to its members, including the Petitioner. The Petitioner purchased his plot from Respondent No.3 by a registered Sale Deed. However, the Petitioner's name could not be mutated in the revenue record as the land acquisition proceedings had already commenced. The State Government acquired the said land for the project known as "International Multimodal Airport Cargo and Passenger Hub". Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition J-WP-5964-25 3/7 Act, 1894 was issued and the acquisition proceedings thereafter culminated in an Award dated 19.07.2008, whereby the compensation came to be shown in the name of Respondent No.3. 4. The Petitioner submits that although the individual plots had already been sold by Respondent No.3 to its members, including the Petitioner, the acquisition and compensation proceedings continued in the name of Respondent No.3 since the names of the individual plot holders were not mutated in the revenue record. Respondent No.3 thereafter challenged the quantum of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court, by Award dated 11.02.2019 in L.A.R. No.151/2009, partly allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation in respect of Survey Nos. 105/1 and 105/4 to the total rate of Rs.27,67,500/- per hectare for barren land, along with the applicable solatium and interest. However, the enhanced compensation also continued to stand in the name of Respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the owner of the plot purchased from Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.3 does not dispute the Petitioner's entitlement to the compensation corresponding to his plot. According to the Petitioner, the fact that the Award was passed in the name of Respondent No.3 J-WP-5964-25 4/7 cannot defeat the substantive entitlement of the individual plot holders. It is submitted that the compensation received or payable under the acquisition proceedings is required to be apportioned amongst the persons actually interested in the acquired property. The Petitioner therefore contends that the matter could be dealt with under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by determining the respective shares of the individual plot holders and thereafter releasing the compensation attributable to the Petitioner's plot. 6. It is further submitted that the Petitioner had approached the Reference Court by filing Civil M.A. No.586/2021 seeking release of the compensation attributable to his individual plot. Respondent No.3 had not disputed the Petitioner's claim and had furnished its no- objection to the payment of the compensation to the concerned plot holders. However, by order dated 08.01.2024, the learned Reference Court rejected the application on the ground that there were 63 applicants in L.A.R. No.151/2009, that all the applicants were not parties to the withdrawal application and that their respective shares had not been determined under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court accordingly held that the applicants could not withdraw the compensation without determination of their respective shares under Section 30. J-WP-5964-25 5/7 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Reference Court has adopted a purely technical approach and failed to consider the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the Petitioner is not seeking any adjudication of the enhanced compensation payable to Respondent No.3 as a whole, but only seeks apportionment of the compensation corresponding to the plot purchased by him. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 itself does not dispute the Petitioner's entitlement and no competing claim is raised in respect of the Petitioner's plot. It is therefore submitted that the compensation ought to be separated and released in favour of the Petitioner, or alternatively the matter ought to be referred for determination of apportionment under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the compensation awarded under the acquisition proceedings is presently lying with the Land Acquisition Authority and has not been lawfully distributed amongst the individual plot holders. The Petitioner submits that unless the Award is appropriately apportioned, the Petitioner, despite having purchased the plot prior to acquisition, would be deprived of the compensation payable in respect thereof, whereas Respondent No.3 would effectively retain compensation relating to land which had J-WP-5964-25 6/7 already been sold to its members. It is therefore submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to appropriate directions for determination and payment of his share of the compensation in accordance with law. Counsel for Respondent No.3 has stated that he has no objection for release of compensation to the petitioner. 9. Per contra, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent/State submits that the order passed by the learned Reference Court does not suffer from any illegality. It is submitted that the Award in L.A.R. No.151/2009 was passed in favour of Respondent No.3 and there are 63 applicants whose respective shares have not been determined. Unless the apportionment of compensation is decided under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the amount cannot be released in favour of an individual claimant. It is therefore submitted that the Petitioner cannot seek direct withdrawal of the compensation without first establishing and determining his proportionate share in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. 10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record, including the Award dated 11.02.2019 passed in L.A.R. No.151/2009 and the order dated 08.01.2024 passed below Exhibit-1 in Civil M.A. No.586/2021. J-WP-5964-25 7/7 11. As can be seen from the impugned order passed below Exhibit- 1, the only reason which has weighed with the trial Court in rejecting the application is that there are 63 applicants who have filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 who are not party to the withdrawal application. It has further recorded a finding that their shares are not decided under Section 30 and without that exercise, they are not entitled for withdrawal of the amount. However, the reason seems to be perverse since, admittedly, previously also amount has been disbursed in favour of the Society and then to its members. Further more, the order is cryptic and does not take into consideration the fact that Society has not objected for withdrawal. 12. In that view of the matter, the petition is partly allowed. The order below Exhibit-1 in Civil M.A. No.586/2021 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-3, Nagpur is quashed and set aside to the extent of the present Petitioner viz. Suresh Kishan Bhagat only. The Court of Ad-hoc District Judge-3, Nagpur to reconsider the claim of the petitioner only in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order thereon. 13. Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE J.) Asmita Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 19/08/2026 10:34:15