SUNIL SUDHIR THITEversusNATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH PROJECT DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:41837



                                                      1
                                                                    928 WP 11679 OF 2024

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   928 WRIT PETITION NO. 11679 OF 2024

                                         SUNIL SUDHIR THITE
                                                VERSUS
                       NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH
                                  PROJECT DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER
                                                   ...
                     Mr. G. K. Naik Thigle, Advocate for the Petitioner
                     Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent/State
                                                   …

                                             CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 8th September 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         Mr. G. K. Thigale, learned Advocate for the petitioner

                     would submit that the petitioner's land admeasuring 4,200

                     square meters, comprising Gat No.73/2, situated at Mouje

                     Bhandari, Taluka and District Dharashiv was acquired by the

                     National Highways Authority of India for construction of

                     National Highway No.361. In accordance with the provisions

                     of law, the final award came to be declared.

                     2.        Respondent No.2 raised an objection before the

                     competent authority claiming his alleged interest in the

                     subject matter land. Accordingly, invoking the provisions of

                     Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the
                              2
                                           928 WP 11679 OF 2024

competent authority referred the matter to the Civil Court.

Consequently, the proceedings culminated in Land Acquisition

Reference No.11 of 2018.

3.    The learned Civil Court heard the parties extensively

and upon considering the evidence on record, vide judgment

and order dated 08.07.2022, declared that the petitioner is

the only owner and interested person in respect of the land

admeasuring 4,200 square meters bearing Gat No.73/2,

situated at Mauje Bhandari, Taluka and District Dharashiv. It

was further declared that the petitioner is the only person

entitled to receive the compensation. The acquiring body was

accordingly directed to deposit the award amount before the

Court.

4.    It is further submitted that pursuant to the said

judgment and award, the amount came to be deposited by the

acquiring body before the Reference Court. The petitioner

accordingly filed an application before the Reference Court

seeking permission to withdraw the said amount.

5.    It appears that Respondent No.2 raised an objection on

06.08.2022, intimating the Court about his intention to prefer

an appeal before this Court against the judgment and award
                              3
                                              928 WP 11679 OF 2024

passed by the Reference Court, and requested that withdrawal

of the amount be stayed till expiry of the period of limitation

for filing the appeal.

6.    It is pertinent to note that the judgment and award

came to be passed on 08.07.2022, whereas the application for

withdrawal was filed on 06.08.2022. On 11.08.2022, the

Reference Court passed the following order:

      “Perused the application and report of As and
      writ section. Perused the say filed by Adv B R
      Mane for Ashok somvanshi. The application has
      been moved by Sunil thite for claiming the
      amount of compensation as per award passed
      in land reference.
      As such the 50% amount of compensation be
      given to Mr. Sunil thite and after obtaining the
      bank guarantee or solvent surety to the extent
      of that amount. remaining amount of
      compensation be paid to Mr. Sunil thite by
      obtaining surety bond of requisite stamp paper
      and undertaking stating therein that he and his
      legal heirs shall be bound by the decision
      higher court before whom the decision in LAR
      no 11/2018 is challenged.”

7.    Mr. Thigale, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits

that the Reference Court permitted withdrawal of the award

amount by the petitioner; however, imposed a condition

requiring the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee in respect

of 50% of the amount. The remaining 50% was permitted to
                               4
                                             928 WP 11679 OF 2024

be withdrawn upon furnishing an undertaking. Needless to

state, the said 50% amount which was permitted to be

withdrawn upon furnishing an undertaking is already

withdrawn by the petitioner.

8.    Mr. Thigale was at pains to submit that there was no

justification for the Reference Court to impose such a stringent

condition upon the petitioner particularly when the same

Court had already arrived at a determined conclusion that the

petitioner was the only person entitled to receive the

compensation awarded in respect of the acquired land.

9.    He would submit that the condition imposed by the

Reference Court is contrary to the settled principles of law and

procedure. He would fairly submit that Respondent No.2 has

preferred First Appeal No.2916 of 2022 before this Court

which is pending. He would candidly submit that in the said

First Appeal, this Court has not passed any preventive order.

10.   In these circumstances, learned Advocate for the

petitioner would submit that the condition imposed by the

Reference Court permitting withdrawal of 50% of the

compensation upon furnishing a bank guarantee is not only

harsh one but cannot be sustained in law.
                                 5
                                               928 WP 11679 OF 2024




11.     It is submitted that Respondent No.2 had merely prayed

that disbursement of the amount be stayed till the limitation

period of the first appeal. However, the Reference Court

applied its mind even beyond the request by Respondent No.2

and levied impugned restrictions upon the petitioner.

12.     On query, Mr. Thigale submits that it is true that there

was a suit between the petitioner and Respondent No.2.

However, under the orders passed by this Court, both matters

were directed to be decided together. Subsequently, the said

suit came to be disposed of under Order VII Rule 11 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He would submit that the

plaint came to be rejected under the said provision and, to his

knowledge, the said order is not challenged by Respondent

No.2.

13.     May it be, it is his submission at bar that till this date,

there is no restrictive order of this Court staying the operation

of the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. In

view of the above, learned Advocate for the petitioner prays

that the present petition be allowed and the restrictions

imposed by the Reference Court vide order dated 11.08.2022
                                6
                                              928 WP 11679 OF 2024

be quashed and set aside.

14.   Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, notice was

served on Respondent No.2 as is evident from the record

placed before me by the Registry. It appears that Respondent

No.2 namely Mahadev was served with the notice along with

a copy of the petition on 29.04.2025. However, nobody

appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2.

15.   I also find an endorsement on the Farad Sheet dated

05.08.2026 indicating that fresh notice was served upon

Respondent No.2. This Court recorded the non-appearance of

Respondent No.2 on 31.07.2026. The entire position was

thereafter recorded by this Court and it was observed that, in

the event Respondent No.2 failed to appear on the next date,

the petition would be heard finally.

16.   Thereafter, the matter was listed on 07.09.2026. Again,

nobody appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2. The matter

was therefore kept on today.

17.   Today, when the matter is called out, nobody appears

on behalf of Respondent No.2. In view of the above, I proceed

to consider the present petition on its merits.
                               7
                                               928 WP 11679 OF 2024

18.   From the record placed before me, I find that the

learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land

Acquisition Reference No.11 of 2018, has categorically

declared that the petitioner is the only owner of the subject

matter property and is the only person entitled to receive the

compensation arising out of the acquisition.

19.   There is nothing on record before me to indicate that

the said judgment and award is stayed by this Court in the

first appeal preferred by Respondent No.2.

20.   The application filed by Respondent No.2 before the

Reference Court seeking stay of disbursement of the deposited

amount was also only for the appeal period. The Reference

Court however, permitted withdrawal of 50% of the amount

upon furnishing a bank guarantee and imposed a condition

requiring the petitioner to furnish an undertaking for

withdrawal of the remaining 50% of the compensation.

21.   The Reference Court has not referred any provision of

law to impose such restrictions. Once the Reference Court had

arrived at a determined conclusion that the petitioner was the

only person entitled to receive the compensation awarded

under the judgment and award, the further condition or
                               8
                                             928 WP 11679 OF 2024

restriction imposed upon the petitioner cannot be said to be

justified.

22.    In the absence of any stay to the judgment and award

passed by the Reference Court, and particularly when the

petitioner is already declared to be the person entitled to

receive the compensation, the condition of furnishing a bank

guarantee for withdrawal of 50% of the compensation cannot

be sustained.

23.    In view of the above discussion, I find that the

petitioner has made out a successful case for interference by

this Court. Hence, I deem it appropriate to pass the following

order :

                           ORDER

      I.     The Writ Petition is allowed.

      II.    The order dated 11.08.2022 passed by the

      learned Reference Court is quashed and set aside

      to the extent it imposes a condition upon the

      petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for

      withdrawal of 50% of the compensation amount.

      III.   The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking

      to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar of the
                              9
                                            928 WP 11679 OF 2024

      Reference Court that, in the event the judgment

      and award passed by the Reference Court is

      varied, modified or set aside in the proceedings

      arising therefrom, the petitioner shall abide by

      such order and shall redeposit such amount as may

      become payable pursuant to such order.

      IV.   The Writ Petition stands disposed of.



                                  ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

PRW