12_WP10744_26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10744 OF 2026 Suresh Kalya Dhodade and others … Petitioners Vs. Parvez Shapur Irani and others … Respondents Mr. Suraj N. Naik i/b. Mr. R. D. Suryawanshi for Petitioners. Mr. Aurup Dasgupta a/w. Mr. Rishad Mehta and Mr. Jaidev Mehrotra i/b. Jhangiani Narula and Associates for Respondent No.1. Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for Respondents-State. CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026 P.C. : . Heard Mr. Naik, leanred counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Dasgupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Respondent No.4 is represented by the learned AGP. 2. This petition has come up for hearing for the first time. Following prayers are sought in the writ petition:- “a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to release / refund the Petitioners’ 60% compensation amount out of total compensation amount of Rs.5,19,25,702/- with respect of Gat 50, lying, being and situate at Village Dhanivari, Taluka Dahanu, District Palghar as well as 60% compensation amount out of Rs.57,90,276/-with respect to Gat No.55, lying being and situate at Village Dhanvari, Taluka Dahanu, District Palghar together with interest accrued on the said amount; b) pending the hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to release / refund the Petitioners' 60% compensation amount out of total compensation amount of Rs.5,19,25,702/- with respect of Gat 50, lying, being and situate at Village Dhanivari, Taluka Dahanu, District Palghar as 1/5 MINAL SANDIP PARAB Digitally signed by MINAL SANDIP PARAB Date: 2026.09.09 19:10:53 +0530 12_WP10744_26.doc well as 60% compensation amount out of Rs.57,90,276/-with respect to Gat No.55, lying being and situate at Village Dhanvari, Taluka Dahanu, District Palghar together with interest accrued on the said amount;” 3. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 raises an objection with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition in the light of admitted position on facts. 4. Attention of this Court is invited to an order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Interim Application No.8016 of 2024 in Writ Petition No.63 of 2021 (exhibit ‘S’ to the present petition). It is submitted that a perusal of the said order would show that the petitioners, instead of following the remedy indicated in the said order by the learned Single Judge of this Court, have filed the writ petition, which ought not to be entertained. 5. It is an admitted position on facts that the respondent No.1 has filed Special Civil Suit No.45 of 2019 before the Competent Civil Court at Palghar against respondent No.2. It is a suit for specific performance filed by respondent No.1 against the original owner - respondent No.2 in respect of the subject land, which was acquired for the benefit of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The aforesaid Writ Petition No.63 of 2021 was filed by the respondent No.1, challenging an order dated 29.02.2020 allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.2, thereby modifying the order of temporary injunction passed by the Civil Court at Palghar. In the said writ petition, it was directed that the compensation amount would be deposited before the said Court at Palghar where the suit is pending, awaiting further orders. The writ petition was disposed of. 6. The aforesaid Interim Application No.8016 of 2024 was filed by the petitioners in the disposed of writ petition seeking certain reliefs on 2/5 12_WP10744_26.doc the basis that as tenants, they are entitled to 60% of the quantum of compensation lying in deposit before the Civil Court at Palghar. It is to be noted that in the present writ petition also, as per the above-quoted prayer clauses, the petitioners are seeking the same relief of disbursal of 60% of the compensation, in their favour. 7. In this context, the relevant portion of the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Interim Application No.8016 of 2024 in Writ Petition No.63 of 2021, assumes significance and it reads as follows:- “5. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Applicants are affected by the order passed by this Court in WP No.63 of 2021. Attention of the Court was invited to a communication dated 21 January 2022 addressed by the Competent Authority to the effect that the amount of compensation which was appropriated in the ratio of 60% to the tenants and 40% to the land holders, has been deposited in the Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court. The Applicants had preferred an application before the Civil Court to implead them as parties in Special Civil Suit No.45 of 2019. However, the said application came to be rejected. The trial of the Suit would take a long time. The order passed by this Court causes serious prejudice to the applicants. Therefore, the order be modified. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in WP No.63 of 2021 raised an objection to the tenability of the application as the Petition No.63 of 2021 has been disposed in the year 2020 and the applicants who were not the parties to the suit before the trial Court have no locus to now seek modification of the order passed by this Court. 7. Since Writ Petition No.63 of 2021 has been disposed by an order dated 30 June 2020, the prayer for modification of the said order by way of an Interim Application in a disposed of Petition, on first principles, cannot be entertained. Secondly, it is pertinent to note that the genesis of the Petition No.63 of 2021 was in an order passed by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.45 of 2019 granting injunction, which was carried in appeal, under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The remit of WP No.63 of 2021 was, thus, restricted to the examination of legality, propriety and correctness of the order 3/5 12_WP10744_26.doc passed by the appellate Court in MCA No.31 of 2019. Secondly, since the applicants had filed an application for impleadment before the trial Court and the said application has been rejected, the proper remedy for the applicants is to assail the said order. 8. It is, however, clarified that the order passed by this Court in WP No.63 of 2021 was restricted to the examination of legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 29 February 2020 passed in MCA No.31 of 2019 and the said order may not impair rights of the applicants if they are able to independently establish their right to claim compensation deposited pursuant to the order of this Court and to seek appropriate remedies as available in law. 9. The Interim Application stands disposed.” 8. It is evident from a perusal of the above-quoted portion of the order that the petitioners themselves had filed an application for impleadement before the Civil Court at Palghar in the pending suit raising contentions similar to those raised in the present writ petition. The impleadment application was rejected. Hence, the learned Single Judge of this Court recorded that the proper remedy for the petitioners was to assail the said order. In that light, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the interim application filed by the petitioner. It is an admitted position that till date, the petitioners have chosen not to challenge the order rejecting their application for impleadment. 9. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be permitted to maintain the present writ petition for the relief of releasing 60% of the compensation in their favour, on their claim of being tenants when they had filed the aforesaid application in the disposed of writ petition and suffered the above-quoted order of the learned Single Judge of this Court. The said order of the learned Single Judge of this Court was also not challenged by the petitioners. In such a situation, the petitioners cannot be allowed to maintain parallel proceedings to effectively challenge the said order of the learned Single 4/5 12_WP10744_26.doc Judge before the Division Bench of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. We are of the opinion that therefore, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. The petitioners are at liberty to institute such proceedings as may be available in law in the pending civil suit before the Civil Court at Palghar. We are not expressing any opinion as regards the fate of such proceedings. 12. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) 5/5 Minal Parab