SHARADA MARHARI MALIversusTHE COMPETENT AUTHORITY DY. COLLECTOR AND ORS

                                                            19-WP-8072-2024.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 8072 OF 2024

Sharada Narhari Mali                                 ...Petitioner.
        Versus
The Competent Authority Deputy Collector
(Land Acquisition) No.6, Kolhapur and Others         ...Respondents.
                              ——————
Mr. Ishaan Kapse for the Petitioner.
Mr. R. P. Kadam, ‘B’ Panel Counsel, for the Respondents-State.
Ms. Divya A. Pawar Patil (Through VC) with Ms. Trupti T. Padekar & Ms. Manasa
M. Koshi, for the Respondent No.3.
Mr. Rishikesh A. Mohite, for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5.
                                  ——————
                                    Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                    Date      : September 16, 2026.
P. C. :

1.        By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the

Respondent No.1 to recall the orders/communications dated 27 th

November 2023 to 29th November 2023, whereby the Petitioner's

account was frozen.

2.        Briely stated, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner's father

owned Gat No.851 at District Kolhapur and after the demise of her

father, the property was mutated in the name of the Petitioner and her

two brothers, i.e., Respondent Nos.4 and 5. The subject property came

to be acquired and notiication was issued under Section 3G(1) of the




Gaikwad RD                           1 of 6
                                                          19-WP-8072-2024.doc


National Highways Act, 1956.        After acquisition, the compensation

amount was disbursed to the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos.4 and

5 and possession of land was taken.            After almost one year of

completion of acquisition, on 3rd November 2023, the Respondent No.4

iled a complaint with the Respondent No.1 stating that the Petitioner

was not a co-owner of the acquired property, as she had released her

share in the year 1993. Without giving any opportunity of hearing to

the Petitioner, the Respondent No.1 ordered the Petitioner's bank to

freeze the amount equivalent to the compensation amount in the bank

account not only of the Petitioner, but also of her family members.

Hence, the present petition.

3.      The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit

that the issue as regards the release deed will have to be agitated in an

appropriate Court of law and the Respondent No.1, who was the

Competent Authority (Land Acquisition), did not have any power to

freeze the Petitioner's and her family member’s account. He submits

that the disbursement had taken place in accordance with law and after

the period of one year, upon a complaint made by Respondent No. 4,

the action initiated by the Respondent No. 1 is patently illegal. He would

further submit that before issuing the communications to the

respective banks, no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner

and therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice.


Gaikwad RD                        2 of 6
                                                                         19-WP-8072-2024.doc


4.       The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 would

submit that the Petitioner had relinquished her right in the subject

property and therefore was not entitled to compensation. He submits

that as compensation was wrongly paid, this Court ought to direct the

Petitioner to deposit the compensation in this Court. Drawing support

from the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Suvarna

Vasant Bhise & Ors. v. National Highways Authority of India & Ors,1

he would contend that this Court has held that the Competent

Authority's action of hurriedly disbursing the compensation amount is

patently illegal and that, where the Land Acquisition Oicer wrongfully

pays the compensation, the Writ Court must recall such amount from

such parties.

5.       We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

6.       The Land Acquisition Oicer had issued notices to the Petitioner

and Respondent Nos.4 and 5 intimating them about compensation

determined and about disbursement in the year 2022. There was no

objection raised by Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the disbursement of

compensation to the Petitioner.                            The Petitioner as well as the

Respondent Nos.4 and 5 received compensation for the acquired

property and after a period of one year, a complaint was made to the

Respondent No. 1 that the Petitioner was not entitled to her share of

1    Writ Petition No.5788 of 2022 Dtd. 16th April 2025.


Gaikwad RD                                     3 of 6
                                                      19-WP-8072-2024.doc


compensation, as she had executed a memorandum of release in the

year 1993. No statutory provision is demonstrated to empower the

Respondent No.1, who is the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition), to

freeze the accounts of the Petitioner and her family members. The

communications were issued directly to the banks without issuing any

notice to the Petitioner. The compensation amount was disbursed by

the Competent Authority presumably in accordance with law. In event

there was any objection to the disbursement, the objection should have

been raised at the appropriate time, so that the Competent Authority

could have exercised the powers under Section 3H of the National

Highways Act, 1956 and referred the dispute to the Civil Court. After a

period of almost one year, the complaint was made and was promptly

acted upon by the Respondent No. 1. The complaint was based on a

purported Memorandum of Release of the year 1993. The Respondent

No.1 is not the authority to adjudicate the issue of genuineness or

authenticity of the Memorandum of Release and ought to have directed

the parties to the Civil Court.     The lis, if any, now is between the

Petitioner and the Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.1 did not have

any authority to pass the impugned communications.

7.      The contention that the Writ Court must recall the amount

wrongly paid, from the party, irstly, would require a determination on

the authenticity of the release deed, which cannot be done in writ


Gaikwad RD                        4 of 6
                                                       19-WP-8072-2024.doc


jurisdiction, and secondly, the petition has been iled by the Petitioner

assailing the patently illegal act of freezing the petitioner's accounts

and that of her family members, in which the Respondent No.4 cannot

seek the relief. The decision in the case of Suvarna Vasant Bhise (supra)

challenged the      Competent Authority's order apportioning and

disbursing the compensation amount. In that case, the petition was

iled by the Objectors and the relief was claimed. In the present case,

no action has been taken by the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, apart from

approaching the Respondent No.1, who did not have any authority to

freeze the Petitioner’s and her family member’s accounts. The petition

assails only the orders of freezing of the Petitioner's accounts, and by

interim order dated 26th August 2025, the accounts came to be de-

freezed.

8.      As limited relief is sought of de-freezing of the accounts and

there is no authority, demonstrated in the Respondent No.1 to freeze

the accounts of the Petitioner and her family members, the petition is

allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

9.      Needless to clarify that it is open for the Respondent No. 1 to

adopt all proceedings, as permissible in law for seeking recall of the

amount, which according to the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 has been

illegally disbursed to the Petitioner.




Gaikwad RD                        5 of 6
                                                                                19-WP-8072-2024.doc


                        10.     The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.




                         [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                       [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]


           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJU
RAJU       DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD    Date:
           2026.09.17
           10:49:27
           +0530




                        Gaikwad RD                         6 of 6