Prakash Sakharam Patil v. The Collector, Kolhapur And ORS.

2026:BHC-AUG:3246 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 812 OF 2026 MOHANLAL CHOTULAL BHATAWALE

VERSUS

GANGARAM CHOTULAL BAHTAWALE AND OTHERS ...

Mr. Satyajit S. Bora, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ...

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATED : 21st JANUARY, 2026.

P.C.:- 1.

The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated 01.01.2026 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Nanded on application below Exhibit-176 in L.A.R. No.9/2019, thereby restraining disbursement of amount of compensation to petitioner in terms of apportionment made under order dated 10.11.2025 in L.A.R. No.9/2019.

2.

Mr. Satyajit Bora, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner would submit that on 10.11.2025 in L.A.R. No.9/2019, rights of parties have been decided in pursuance to reference made under Section 3-H(4) of National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioner is held entitled to receive compensation as per apportionment made in Clause No.4 of operative part of Award. In pursuance to Award dated 10.11.2025 passed in L.A.R. No.9/2019 respective parties made an application for disbursement of amount. At this stage, respondent no.1 objected disbursement of amount in favour of petitioner. The Reference Court partly allowed such objection and

(2) directed withholding compensation apportioned to share of petitioner.

3.

Mr. Bora, learned Advocate would submit that once final Award was passed by Reference Court in L.A.R. No.9/2019, crystallizing rights of respective parties to receive compensation, Reference Court was being fanctus officio, could not have stayed or withhold disbursement of petitioner's share, particularly when disbursement in respect of other parties has been permitted under same order.

4.

Mr. Amit Mukhedkar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 submits that there is fundamental flaw in apportionment order dated 10.11.2025. The respondent no.1 is intending to challenge Award by filing Writ Petition before this Court. This particular fact was brought to the notice of Reference Court. Accordingly, impugned order is passed, thereby protecting interest of respondent no.1 for limited period of one month. 5.

Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that impugned order apportioned amount in favour of respective parties in L.A.R. No.9/2019. Therefore, shares have been crystallized. Undisputedly, petitioner's share is also crystallized under same order and he is entitled to receive amount. At this stage, objection is raised by respondent no.1 contending that he is aggrieved by

(3) apportionment in favour of petitioner. Apparently, till this date writ petition is not filed against Award. However, under impugned order limited protection is granted with condition that respondent no.1 shall submit details of writ petition, if any, filed within period of one month. The aforesaid order cannot be countenanced for simple reason that rights of parties are crystallized by Reference Court under its order dated 10.11.2025. If any party has objection to Award, he is at liberty to file appropriate proceeding or Writ Petition before this Court. However, in present case, till this date, Writ Petition is not filed. Therefore, disbursement of amount in favour of petitioner could not have been stalled indefinitely. In aforesaid background, following workable order can be passed:

ORDER

a.

Writ Petition is partly allowed.

b.

The disbursement of amount apportioned in favour of petitioner be kept in abeyance till 01.02.2026. c.

In case, respondent no.1 files writ petition and secures interim stay to the disbursement of amount, such amount would remain with Court, else amount falling to share of petitioner be forthwith disbursed.

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/January-2026