Bombay High Court
NANHAYA DAMA RASAL AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is disposed of by directing the Competent Authority/SDO to consider the claim under Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 and to determine its applicability under sub‑clauses 3H(3) or 3H(4).
Summary
The petitioners, Nanhaya Dama Rasal & Anr., filed a writ petition claiming entitlement to compensation under an award dated 31 December 2018, alleging that the Competent Authority/Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO) had not considered their claim. The respondent State of Maharashtra, through the SDO, relied on Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, asserting that the claim must be examined alongside other claims and objections. The Court held that the petition could be disposed of by directing the SDO to consider the petitioners' claim in accordance with Section 3H, and to determine whether the matter falls under sub‑clauses 3H(3) or 3H(4). The Court ordered the SDO to pass an appropriate order within eight weeks. All pending applications were also disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the award dated 31 December 2018.
- Whether the Competent Authority/Sub‑Divisional Officer must consider the petitioners' claim under Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Legislation cited
- National Highways Act, 1956 — s. 3H, 3H(3), 3H(4)
Subjects
- compensation
- National Highways Act
- Section 3H
- writ petition
- competent authority
- claim
- award
- disposal
Judgment
bipin prithiani
1
36-wp-4149.25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4149 OF 2025
Nanhaya Dama Rasal & Anr. … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
******
Mr. Gautam T. Kanchanpurkar for Petitioners.
Mrs. Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. G. P. a/w Mrs. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for
Respondent-State.
******
Digitally signed by
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
BIPIN BIPIN
DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER PRITHIANI
PRITHIANI Date: 2026.09.11
18:10:30 +0530
DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that
although they claim to be entitled to compensation in pursuance
of award dated 31st December 2018, the respondent No.2-
Competent Authority/Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) has not
considered their claim.
3. The reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2-
Competent Authority/SDO refers to Section 3H of the National
Highways Act, 1956 and thereupon, it is submitted that the claim
of the petitioners can be considered, along with the claims and/or
objections of all concerned persons, in accordance with law.
bipin prithiani
2
36-wp-4149.25.doc
4. We are of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondent
No.2-Competent Authority/SDO in the reply affidavit, can be the
basis of disposing of the petition itself.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, by
directing respondent No.2-Competent Authority/SDO to consider
the claim of the petitioners, along with the claims and/or
objections of all concerned persons, in accordance with Section
3H of the aforesaid Act. The respondent No.2-Competent
Authority/SDO shall take a decision as to whether the present case
falls under Section 3H(3) or 3H(4) of the said Act and thereupon,
the said respondent shall proceed strictly in accordance with law.
6. The respondent No.2-Competent Authority/SDO shall act in
accordance with the directions given hereinabove and pass an
appropriate order within eight weeks from today.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Checking your session…