MALOJIRAO VINAYAKRAO NIMBALKAR DECEASED THR. LRS. MADHUBALA MALOJIRAO NIMBALKAR AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA THR. THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS AND ORS.

                                              905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
             WRIT PETITION NO. 2000 OF 2026
 Malojirao Vinayakrao Nimbalkar Deceased Thr. Lrs. Madhubala
                 Malojirao Nimbalkar And Ors.
                            VERSUS
Union Of India Thr. The Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways
                            And Ors.

                           WITH
               WRIT PETITION NO. 1999 OF 2026
 Malojirao Vinayakrao Nimbalkar Deceased Thr. Lrs. Madhubala
                 Malojirao Nimbalkar And Ors.
                            VERSUS
Union Of India Thr. The Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways
                            And Ors.

                           WITH
               WRIT PETITION NO. 1991 OF 2026
Malojirao Vinayakrao Nimbalkar Deceased Thr Legal Heirs And Ors.
                            VERSUS
Union Of India Thr. The Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways
                            And Ors.

Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Viraj Patil, advocate for
petitioners
Mr. Vijay Killedar a/w Mr. Shivraj Jagdale, a/w Mr. Rahul Rote,
advocate for respondent no. 1
Mr. Manoj Patil, advocate for respondent no. 5, 7 to 11
Mr. Satyajeet Rajeshirke, advocate for respondent no. 6
Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel AGP for respondent-state in WP
2000/2026
Mr. V. M. Mali AGP for the State in WP 1999/2026
Ms. T. J. Kapre, AGP for the State in WP 1991/2026




                             1 of 10
                                                         905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc


                              CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, &
                                      NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
                              DATE : 17th JUNE, 2026

P. C. :

1.        Heard Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate for the petitioners, Mr.

Vijay Killedar, advocate for respondent no. 1, Mr. Manoj Patil,

advocate for respondent no. 5, 7 to 11, Mr. Satyajeet Rajeshirke,

advocate for respondent no. 6 and respective AGP in respective Writ

Petitions.

2.        The challenge in the present Writ Petitions is to the order of

rejection passed by the competent authority under the provisions of

Section 3H(4) of The National Highways Act, 1956 (Hereinafter

referred to as ‘the said Act’) rejecting the application of the

petitioners            for         referring       the      dispute          for

apportionment/entitlement/partition with regard to property that

has been acquired under the Said Act to the Civil Court.

3.        Learned senior advocate Mr. Shah impresses upon the Court

that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Vinod Kumar and others Vs. District Magistrate, Mau and

others1, the competent authority does not have the jurisdiction and

authority to adjudicate or pass such an order rejecting the reference
1    (2023) 19 Supreme Court Cases 126


                                         2 of 10
                                                    905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc


to the Civil Court in the event if dispute is raised.

4.    Mr. Killedar, learned advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1

in his usual fair mindedness tenders a copy of the decision and

citation of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar to the

Court and joins the submission advanced by the Mr. Shah. Mr.

Manoj Patil, learned advocate also endorses the submissions made

by Mr. Shah and Mr. Killedar. Equally Mr. Kalel, the learned AGP

also agrees with the same.

5.    The antagonist in the present matter is Respondent No. 6

represented by Mr. Rajeshirke. The disputes with regard to

entitlement are pending between the parties in the Civil Court. He

would persuade the Court to consider the fact that in the previous

round of litigation, a similar question had arisen but despite

pendency of dispute, the amounts were already disbursed to the

Respondent No. 6 to the exclusion of the petitioners and to her

family members. However, he also in his usual fair mindedness

apprises the Court that partition suit is pending between the parties

wherein directions are passed for expeditious disposal of the said

partition suit before the Civil Court. He would submit that the said

suit is at the stage of recording of evidence and it would ultimately



                                 3 of 10
                                                  905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc


determine the substantive entitlement of the parties. However, he

would disagree with one submission made on behalf of the

petitioners. He would submit that not only in the previous round of

litigation, but even with regard to the cause of action in the present

proceedings, the amounts have already been disbursed by the

competent authority to the Respondent No. 6. He says so on

instructions received by him in the Court. This is strongly refuted by

Mr. Shah, as according to his instructions in the present lis, the

amounts are still lying with the Competent Authority and are not yet

disbursed. In this view of the matter, the Court will have to

therefore, step in.

6.    After perusing the papers and the decision in the case of Vinod

Kumar, the impugned order is prima facie not sustainable and is

therefore, quashed and set aside. Needless to state that the

application made by the petitioners for reference to the Civil Court

in view of the dispute raised is directed to be referred to the Civil

Court by the competent authority forthwith. Adhering to the

submissions made by Mr. Rajeshirke and without passing any

decision on merits or looking into the matter, it is further directed

that, if and only if, the amounts are not disbursed (which is the



                               4 of 10
                                                  905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc


contention of the petitioners) with regard to the cause of action in

the present petition by the competent authority, then the said

amounts which are held by the competent authority will be

transferred to the Civil Court where the partition suit is pending or

the apportionment reference proceedings as applicable. However, if

Mr. Rajeshirke is right in his contention and if Respondent No. 6 has

already received the amounts then in that case it shall be open to

parties to make appropriate application before the Civil Court in

accordance with law in the pending partition suit or the reference

proceedings and if any such application is made, the Court shall

determine the same, after hearing all the parties expeditiously.

7.      All contentions of the parties are otherwise expressly kept

open. The Writ Petitions stand allowed and disposed of in the above

terms.

8.      We are impelled to pass the above order and directions and

reiterate the guidelines and directions laid down by this Court in the

case of Sojar Vs. Krishnath and Others2.

9.      For the sake of convenience and reference, the said guidelines

are reiterated which are reproduced herein below:

         “56. Therefore, we direct the Revenue Secretary to
2    2025 SCC OnLine Bom 307


                                5 of 10
                                          905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc


circulate copies of the judgment and order of the
Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar case1, judgment and
order in Arun case2 and copies of the present judgment
and order to the Competent Authorities appointed
under the NH Act so that this this feigned excuse of
ignorance of the law is not available to the officials.
Bona fide actions or bona fide views on legal issues by
quasi-judicial or statutory authorities can be protected
even if ultimately such actions or viewpoints are not
accepted by the courts. However, extending such
benevolent immunity to matters where bonafide is
suspect or gross and perhaps deliberate deviation from
the legal provisions or binding precedents would be
counterproductive. This would only encourage errant
officials from breaching the law with impunity for
reasons that are not far to seek.

62. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition by making
the following
order:
(a) The impugned order dated 21-12-2023 is quashed
and set aside.
(b) Instead of directing Respondents 1 to 3 to deposit
the entire compensation received by them under the
impugned order dated 21-12-2023, said Respondents 1
to 3, consistent with their statement, are directed to
deposit the amount of Rs 13,30,000 in the court of



                         6 of 10
                                             905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc


District Judge, Solapur within two months from today
and file a compliance report in this Court on or before
22-4-2025. A copy of this must be furnished to the
petitioner in advance.
(c) If Respondents 1 to 3 fail to deposit the above
amount before the District Court, Solapur and fail to
file the compliance report with proof of such deposit,
Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the entire
amount    of    compensation       approximating    to    Rs
80,00,000 received by them under the impugned order
dated 21-12-2023, latest by 9-5-2025 in this Court
together with interest thereon at the rate of 7 per cent
per ammum This would be without prejudice to
initiating contempt proceedings against Respondents 1
to 3 for breaching the undertaking given to this Court,
based    upon    which    this     Court   has   permitted
Respondents 1 to 3 to deposit only the amount of Rs
13,30,000 instead of the entire amount received under
the order dated 21-12-2023.
(d) The competent authority is directed to refer the
apportionment dispute between the petitioner and
Respondents 1 to 3 regarding the compensation for the
entire acquired property, to the Principal Civil Court of
Original Jurisdiction i.e. District Court at Solapur,
within two months from today and file a compliance
report in this Court at the latest by 22-4-2025. Along
with this reference, the competent authority must also


                         7 of 10
                                             905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc


deposit an amount of Rs 5,07,001, being compensation
towards Gat No. 361, in the District Court at Solapur.
(e) Upon deposit of the above amount of Rs 13,30,000
by Respondents 1 to 3, the District Court, Solapur, must
allow the petitioner to withdraw such amount upon
furnishing an undertaking that such withdrawal would
abide by the final orders in reference of the
apportionment dispute. The undertaking should State
that the petitioner would bring back this amount
together with interest as shall be determined by the
District Court should the District Court decide that the
petitioner is not entitled to this amount.
(f) The District Court at Solapur must dispose of the
apportionment     dispute relating      to   the   acquired
properties i.e. bearing Gat Nos. 360, 361, 362 and 363
at Manegaon, Barshi, Solapur, as expeditiously as
possible after giving all parties full opportunity in
support of their respective versions.
(g) This Court has not decided on the merits of the
rival claims for apportionment. Any observations in this
judgment and order are only prima facie or tentative.
Therefore, the District Court, Solapur, should decide
the apportionment reference uninfluenced by such
observations but strictly following law and the
evidence that the parties would render before it.
(h) The Revenue Secretary, the Government of
Maharashtra and the National Highways Authorities


                         8 of 10
                                                     905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc


      must circulate copies of the judgment of the Supreme
      Court in Vinod Kumar case1 and of this Court in Ashok
      More case6 and this judgment and order to the
      competent authorities, so that at least in future, the
      Competent        Authorities   act   consistent    with    the
      provisions of the NH Act and law laid down in these
      decisions. If possible, a workshop should be held to
      apprise    the     Competent     Authorities      and     other
      functionaries under the NH Act of the legal position
      relating to resolving apportionment disputes followed
      by disbursement of the compensation amount.
      (i) The Revenue Secretary and responsible officer from
      the National Highways Authorities must file a
      compliance report in this Court by 22-4-2025.
      (j) No cost orders, considering the reasonable approach
      adopted by Respondents 1 to 3 in offering to deposit
      the sum of Rs 13,30,000 within two months.
      (k) The District Court is requested to ascertain from
      the parties whether some settlement is possible by
      referring the matter to mediation or otherwise. In
      short, the District Court to which the reference is made
      must explore the possibility of the parties settling the
      matter without a long-drawn contest.
      (l) All concerned are to act on the authenticated copy
      of this order.”

10.   Copy of this order shall be placed before the Revenue



                                 9 of 10
                                                                      905-WP-2000-2026 (C).doc


                 Secretary of the State by the Government Pleader, Appellate Side.

                 Despite the aforesaid guidelines being in place for the past more

                 than one year, similar orders are repeatedly passed by the Revenue

                 Officers. Revenue Secretary is therefore, directed to ensure that

                 appropriate communication is sent to all Revenue Officers in the

                 State with regard to the present issue so that the ignominy of the

                 parties is redressed and they are not required to approach the

                 Courts in extraordinary jurisdiction time and again. Such litigation

                 also dogs the docket of this Court. It is observed in the aforesaid

                 decision that the Revenue Officers are defying the orders passed by

                 this Court. A similar situation has arisen in the present case. We,

                 therefore, impress upon the Revenue Secretary to ensure that each

                 of the Revenue Officer of the State is circulated the copy of this

                 Judgment to ensure that such dereliction does not happen in future.

                 The reason being, that parties are driven to Court and Court is

                 burdened unnecessarily.

                 11.       Writ Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.




                 [NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.]                     [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.]
Iresh




        IRESH  Digitally signed by
               IRESH MASHAL

        MASHAL Date: 2026.06.19
               17:55:23 +0530

                                                   10 of 10