Bombay High Court

SURESH KALYA DHODADE AND ORSversusPARVEZ SHAPUR IRANI AND ORS

Decided: 9 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Division Bench held that the writ petition is not maintainable and dismissed it.

Summary

The petitioners sought a writ directing the release of 60% of compensation amounts deposited in a civil suit concerning land acquired for the NHAI, claiming entitlement as tenants. The court noted that the petitioners had previously filed an interim application in the already disposed Writ Petition No.63 of 2021, seeking the same relief, which was rejected by a single judge. The single judge had held that the proper remedy was to challenge the order of rejection in the pending civil suit, not through a fresh writ. Since the petitioners did not pursue that remedy and the earlier interim application was disposed, the Division Bench found the present writ petition to be an impermissible parallel proceeding. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, with the court indicating that the petitioners may pursue appropriate relief in the civil suit.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioners have previously sought the same relief in a disposed writ petition and were rejected for impleadment.
Whether petitioners can claim 60% of the compensation as tenants under the earlier order.
Whether parallel proceedings under Article 226 are permissible in this context.
The appropriate remedy for the petitioners to obtain the claimed compensation.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 43
Constitution of India — s. Article 226

Subjects

writ petition
Article 226
maintainability
parallel proceedings
compensation
tenants
impleadment
civil suit
interim application
jurisdiction

Judgment

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
MINAL Digitally
by MINAL
SANDIP Date:
signed
SANDIP PARAB
2026.09.09
Dhanvari, Taluka Dahanu, District Palghar together with
PARAB 19:10:53 +0530
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
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.)

Minal Parab

5/5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…