IUnion of India and another v. Tarsem Singh and others reported in
Legal Reasoning
1 57 fa 726.25IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 726 OF 2025WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3879 OF 2025Kailash Gopinath Gaikwad and others.. AppellantsVersusThe Competent Authority of LandAcquisition and others.. RespondentsShri Vilas Balgir Giri, Advocate for the Appellants.Shri S. W. Munde, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.Shri Avinash P. Khande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.CORAM :SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE :04TH AUGUST, 2025.FINAL ORDER :.Heard both sides on the issue of maintainability of firstappeal. Appellants have challenged judgment and order dated20.02.2025 passed by the 04th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division,Aurangabad in L.A.R. No. 46 of 2018. In pursuance of the orderU/Sec. 3(H)(4) of the National Highways Act, competentauthority referred matter to the Civil Court for deciding thedispute and/or entitlement to receive the compensation intersebetween the parties. The respondent No. 2 has raisedpreliminary objection of tenability of the first appeal.2.Learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record the 2 57 fa 726.25following judgments of the Supreme Court and other HighCourts :IUnion of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304.IINational Highways Authority of India Vs. P. Nagarju @ Cheluvaiah and another reported in (2022) 15 SCC 01.IIIJudgment dated 21.06.2024 in the matter of Chandra Kumar Chettri Vs. Kipu Lepcha (Sikkim High Court)IIISreeja Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 5428.IVJudgment dated 08.07.2015 in Regular First Appeal No. 2764 of 2015 in the matter of Bhoop Singh and others Vs. Kuria and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court).VJudgment dated 29.09.2024 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 15282 of 2022 in the matter of Roshanbi Aziz Motiwala Vs. The Union of India through the Secretary and others with other connected writ petitions.VIJudgment dated 07.01.2025 in First Appeal Defective No. 447 of 2023 in the matter of Roopchand and others Vs. National Highway Authority of India and others (Allahabad High Court)3.Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Avinash Khande for therespondent No. 2 has referred to following judgments tocorroborate his objection.
Legal Reasoning
3 57 fa 726.25(i)Judgment dated 26.02.2015 in Writ C. No. 69020 of 2014 inthe matter of Shri Gurudwara Committee Chakeri Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Transport and others (Allahabad High Court)(ii)Dr. Abhay Laddulal Shah Vs. Udaykumar Radhakisan Dubey and others reported in 2016(4) All MR 732.4.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that his clientis entitled to receive the compensation because sale deedexecuted on 28.02.2001 is bad in law. No title could betransferred to the respondent No. 2. It is submitted that therespondent No. 2 and other persons are out to grab thecompensation. It is contended that the appellants approachedthe competent authority under the provisions of the MaharashtraLand Revenue Code. But the matter was delegated to differentauthorities. No decision has been rendered so far. It is furthersubmitted that the respondent No. 2 is not entitled to receive anycompensation.5.Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits thatappellant had preferred wrong remedy of Writ Petition No. 2953of 2025, which was withdrawn vide order dated 28.02.2025.Present appeal is also not tenable. Because of the interim ordersthe respondent No. 2 is unable to receive the compensation. Hewould submit that no permission should be granted to theappellant to convert the proceeding and ad-interim relief should 4 57 fa 726.25be vacated.6.Taking survey of above referred judgments, what reveals isthat in judgment of Shri Gurudwara Committee Chakeri Vs.Union of India Through Secretary Transport and others (supra)Allahabad High Court has categorically held that no statutoryremedy is provided for the order passed by the Civil Court in areference U/Sec. 3(H)(4) of the Act and, therefore, civil revisionapplication U/Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would bemaintainable.7.Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 also pointed outthe judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the matter of ArunCh. Baruah and another Vs. The State of Assam and others inCase No. C.R.P. 80 of 2018. In such a case remedy of revision isavailable and not appeal.8.The maintainability of the appeal has not been decided inany of the judgments except judgment of the learned SingleJudge of this Court at Nagpur in the matter of Dr. AbhayLaddulal Shah Vs. Udaykumar Radhakisan Dubey and others(supra) and Division Bench judgment dated 27.01.2025 of theAndhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of Bollineni SrihariRao vs Competent Authority and others in A. S. No. 08 of 2025.9.The remedy of the appeal has to be provided by thestatutory provision expressly. Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition 5 57 fa 726.25Act, 1884 provides for remedy of appeal. Likewise Sec. 74 of theRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for thesake of brevity and convenience hereinafter referred as to the“Act of 2013’) also provides for remedy of appeal. There is noprovision either in the National Highway Act or Act of 2013prescribing remedy of appeal.10.In the judgment of this Court in the matter of Dr.A bhay Laddual Shah Vs. Udaykumar Radhakisan Dubey & Ors. reported in 2016(4)ALL MR 732, learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court wasdealing with old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land wasacquired in that case by the authority of National Highways. Thejudgment will not help the appellants. In the Division Bench’sjudgment of Andhara Pradesh High Court Bollineni Srihari Raovs Competent Authority And others (supra), it has been heldthat order passed by the civil court after the reference underSection 3(H)(4) of National Highways Act,1956 is a decree and itis appealable but in the absence of appeal, by implicationinference can not be drawn for the remedy of appeal. 11.I am of the considered view that present first appeal is nottenable and only remedy for the appellant is to prefer civilrevision application U/Sec. 115 of the C. P. C.12.A request is made by the learned counsel for the appellantsto grant leave to convert present first appeal into civil revision 6 57 fa 726.25application. The parameters and the scope of first appeal andcivil revision application U/Sec. 115 of the C. P. C. are totallydifferent. A permission to convert first appeal into revisioncannot be granted. However, appellants should be at liberty toprefer distinct revision application and the time consumed inprosecuting first appeal can be requested to be condoned byresorting to Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act.13.Another request is made by the learned counsel for theappellants for continuation of interim relief, which was grantedon 09th April, 2025 in Civil Application No. 3879 of 2025.14.The entitlement to receive compensation by the parties isat stake. The respondent No. 2 and other private parties aresuccessful before the Trial Court. Initially writ petition wasfiled, which was requested to be withdrawn for filing first appeal.Today first appeal is found to have been not maintainable. If theappellants succeed in the remedy chosen by them, their right toreceive the compensation will be upheld. Even in the mean timeamount is disbursed, they will not be remediless and they canresort to remedy available in the law for the recovery of theamount. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to continueinterim relief.15.First appeal is disposed of as not maintainable. Appellantsshall be at liberty file civil revision application or any otherremedy as permissible in law. There shall be no continuation of
Decision
7 57 fa 726.25earlier interim relief. 16.The civil application also stands disposed of. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] bsb/Aug. 25