VIDYA SHIVAJI KUNJIR AND ANRversusMANISHA RAJARAM KUNJIR AND ORS

bipin prithiani
                                     1
                                                         29-wp-11193.25.doc

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  WRIT PETITION NO. 11193 OF 2025

Vidya Shivaji Kunjir & Anr.                        …    Petitioners
     Versus
Manisha Rajaram Kunjir & Ors.                      …    Respondents
                              ******
Mr. Sumit V. Sonare for Petitioners.
Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w Mr. Samir Suryawanshi and Ms. Bhakti
Wast for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent-State.
                              ******
                       CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
                                   SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

                           DATE      : 21st SEPTEMBER 2026

P.C. :

.         Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.        The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 6 th March 2025
passed by respondent No.3-Sub-Divisional Officer, Haveli, Pune
(SDO), whereby the said respondent disposed of an objection
submitted by respondent No.1 by directing that in the facts of the
case, acquisition by consent not being possible, the process of
acquisition would have to be taken under Section 19B(3) of the
Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 (Highways Act), as compulsory
acquisition. It was further directed that the amount of
compensation be deposited before the Competent Court under
Section 19C(4) of the Highways Act.
bipin prithiani
                                     2
                                                            29-wp-11193.25.doc

3.        Upon notices being issued, reply affidavits have been filed in
this writ petition.

4.        The documents filed along with the reply affidavit of
respondent No.3, show that on 19 th May 2025, an award was
already passed by respondent No.3-SDO under Section 19B(3) of
the Highways Act, in pursuance of compulsory acquisition that
had to be undertaken in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, in respect of the subject land located in Gat No.466 situated
at Valti, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune. It is further brought on record
that the respondent No.3-SDO has proceeded to make a reference
under Section 19C(4) of the Highways Act, in respect of the
dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.1. The amount
of compensation determined as per the said award is also
deposited before the said Court.

5.        It is to be noted that by order dated 29 th April 2026, when
mediation was proposed on behalf of respondent No.1, the
petitioners also agreed to explore the possibility of settlement.
Accordingly, the dispute between the parties was referred to
learned Mediator. By report dated 26th June 2026, the learned
Mediator reported that the mediation had failed.

6.        In the light of the failure of mediation, the writ petition was
heard on merits.

7.        The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
respondent No.1 has raised a baseless dispute, seeking to raise
claim in respect of the subject property, when a partition had
bipin prithiani
                                      3
                                                                 29-wp-11193.25.doc

already taken place and the respondent No.1 could never raise any
claim in respect of the subject property. It was submitted that the
partition suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 1567 of 2017 filed by
the respondent No.1 and others, is without any substance and it
cannot be the basis for preventing the petitioners to enter into
agreement for acquisition by consent under Section 19B(2) of the
Highways Act. It is submitted that the names of the petitioners are
recorded in the revenue record (7/12 extract) on the basis of
registered documents in their favour and therefore, the respondent
No.3-SDO in the impugned order could not have virtually
directed abandonment of acquisition by consent and leaving the
course open only for compulsory acquisition. It was submitted that
due to the actions undertaken by the respondent No.1, the
petitioners are illegally deprived of additional 25% compensation,
since        acquisition   by   consent   carries   the   said      additional
compensation. In this regard, attention of this Court was invited
to exhibit ‘E’, which recorded that the total compensation through
acquisition by consent would come to Rs.5,70,21,723/-, which
included 25% additional compensation payable under Section
19B(2) of the Highways Act. By inviting attention of this Court to
documents on record, it was asserted that the impugned order
deserves to be set aside. In the alternative, it was submitted that
respondent No.3-SDO ought to be directed to deposit the
additional 25% compensation in the Court, where the reference is
already made, so that eventually it can inure to the benefit of the
petitioners.
bipin prithiani
                                  4
                                                      29-wp-11193.25.doc

8.        On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 submitted that ideally, the petitioners should
have agreed for a mediated solution to the dispute, but they
refused to do so. In the absence of resolution through mediation
and the claim asserted by the said respondent, there was no
alternative for respondent No.3-SDO, but to pass the impugned
order. It was submitted that in the process, there is no doubt that
all the rightful claimants to the compensation amount are losing
out on 25% additional compensation, as even the respondent
No.1 is not averse to acquisition of the subject property by
consent, but due to the approach of the petitioners, compulsory
acquisition had to be undertaken in this case.

9.        The learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-
SDO submitted that there is no error attributable to the impugned
order in the given facts and circumstances. The only course left
open for the respondent No.3-SDO was to initiate and complete
the process of compulsory acquisition. Such a process was
undertaken, which culminated in the said award dated 19 th May
2025 and upon determination of compensation, since the dispute
has been referred to the Competent Court i.e. the Principal Civil
Court of original jurisdiction within whose limit the subject
property is situated, no further directions are necessary in the
matter. It is submitted that the amount of compensation
determined under the said award, is already deposited with the
Competent Court. On this basis, it is submitted that the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
bipin prithiani
                                    5
                                                         29-wp-11193.25.doc

10.       We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the
lack of consensus amongst the petitioners and respondent No.1,
has resulted in a situation where all of them have lost out on the
opportunity of additional 25% compensation that could have been
paid for the acquisition of the subject property, had all of them
agreed for acquisition of the subject property by consent.

11.       In the absence of consensus between the parties and the
objection being raised by respondent No.1, it was evident that an
agreement by consent for acquisition of the subject property was
not possible and therefore, the only course open for respondent
No.3-SDO was to initiate process for compulsory acquisition
under Section 19B(3) of the Highways Act.

12.       Although, the respondent No.1 relied upon documents,
including a purported partition deed, the said controversy is alive
in the pending Regular Civil Suit No. 1567 of 2017, which has
been filed by the respondent No.1 and others. Inter se rights of the
parties are yet to be decided.

13.       In such a situation, the insistence of the petitioners that
respondent No.3-SDO ought to have executed the agreement for
acquisition by consent exclusively with them, does not appear to
be sustainable.

14.       We find that in such a factual backdrop, the respondent
No.3-SDO took the only reasonable approach possible and that
was to note that since acquisition of the subject property by
consent under Section 19B(2) of the Highways Act was not
bipin prithiani
                                      6
                                                             29-wp-11193.25.doc

possible, compulsory acquisition under Section 19B(3) thereof was
warranted. In the impugned order, apart from making the said
observation, it was also held that the compensation amount after
taking recourse to Section 19B(3) of the Highways Act, would
have to be deposited before the Competent Court under Section
19C(4) thereof. We are of the opinion that in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the approach adopted by the
respondent No.3-SDO, while passing the impugned order, cannot
be said to be arbitrary or illegal. We find the approach to be
reasonable.

15.       It is also an admitted position that in the interregnum, after
taking recourse to Section 19B(3) of the Highways Act, the
respondent No.3-SDO proceeded to pass the final award dated
19th May 2025, through compulsory acquisition of the subject
property. Accordingly, quantum of compensation was also
determined. It is also an admitted position that the dispute
between the parties, as on today, has been referred by respondent
No.3-SDO to the Competent Court, by taking recourse to Section
19C(4) of the Highways Act and the quantum of compensation
determined through compulsory acquisition has been already
deposited before the said Court. This is evident from the
documents filed at exhibit ‘R6’ collectively by respondent No.3-
SDO.

16.       In such a situation, the alternative plea of the petitioners that
additional amount of 25% compensation should be directed to be
bipin prithiani
                                        7
                                                           29-wp-11193.25.doc

deposited with the Competent Court, cannot be accepted.
Evidently, this is no longer a case of acquisition by consent and
since recourse to compulsory acquisition had to be taken,
culminating in the award dated 19th May 2025, we do not find any
reason to grant the alternative plea made on behalf of the
petitioners.

17.       In view of the above, we see no merit in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if
any, stand disposed of.

18.       Needless to say, the Competent Court shall decide the
dispute referred to it, on its own merits.

19.       All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.



  (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)                     (MANISH PITALE, J.)

                  Digitally signed by
    BIPIN         BIPIN DHARMENDER
    DHARMENDER    PRITHIANI
    PRITHIANI     Date: 2026.09.23
                  10:52:56 +0530