IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 913 WRIT PETITION NO. 1730 OF 2024 KHAIRUNBI KASHIMSAB MOMIN VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS Mr. V. H. Pathade, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N. D. Raje, AGP for the respondent/State Mr. R. R. Bangar, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. A. D. Gadekar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Mr. D. V. Tele, Advocate for respondent Nos. 10 to 13 CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 4th APRIL, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. This petition takes exception to the order dated 24/12/2021 passed by the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 rejecting application dated 05/02/2021 filed by the petitioner for reinquiry and remeasurement of the acquired land acquired and thereupon pay compensation to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims herself to be the owner of land bearing Gut No. 259. It is her case that her husband Kashimsab was the owner and after his death she has inherited the said property from him. An application was moved before the Competent Authority on 05/02/2021 seeking following direction. 913.wp1730.24.odt 1 of 4 2025:BHC-AUG:10137 ^^rjh es- lkgsckauh xSjvtZnkj ;kaP;k ukos eatwj >kysyk ekostk eqG xVkizek.ks o dCtsoghokVh izek.ks R;kph Qsj ekst.kh o Qsj pkSd’kh d:u laiknhr tehuhpk ekostk ekÖ;k ukos iznku dj.;kr ;kok-** . This application was heard and considered by the Competent Authority. By passing impugned order the same came to be rejected. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of provisions of Section 3H(4) of the Act, it was not open for the Competent Authority to decide the issue of apportionment of the compensation and the same ought to have been referred to the Competent Civil Court. 4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents opposed the said submission by drawing attention of the Court to the fact that the petitioner has not raised any objection with regard to the apportionment but reinquiry/ remeasurement was sought. By drawing attention of the Court to the order impugned it is contended that the application was decided on merit with finding that this is not the case of reinquiry. It is their contention that in absence of any specific plea being raised under Section 3H(4) of the Act, there was no prohibition/embargo on the Competent Authority to decide the said application. 913.wp1730.24.odt 2 of 4 5. Though it is sought to be argued before this Court that the issue raised before Competent Authority under the Act, was for raising objection to the apportionment, but as it can be seen from prayer in the application as recorded above the prayer made before the Competent Court was not raising objection to the apportionment but for reinquiry and remeasurement. At this stage it would be relevant to take note of the provision of Section 3H of the Act. This provision indicates that when the amount is determined under Section 3G of the Act and it is deposited with the authority, the authority is required to disuburse the said amount to the persons who are entitled to receive the same. In this context if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any party thereof or any person to whom the same or any parties payable, the Competent Authority is required to refer the dispute to the Competent Civil Court. Perusal of the application filed by the petitioner does not indicate that about any issue being raised as contemplated by Section 3H(4) of the Act. The issue raised is with regard to the correctness of the measurement, the said issue could have been dealt with by the Competent Authority itself and has been rightly dealt with. 6. In these facts the Competent Authority has passed conditional impugned order with observation that in case any Competent Court upholds the rights/claiim of the petitioner, the contesting 913.wp1730.24.odt 3 of 4 respondent would be liable for repayment of the amount which is paid to them. Having regard to the order impugned and the conditions imposed, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by impugned order. Hence, no merit in the petition. Petition stands dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 913.wp1730.24.odt 4 of 4