MHCH020025782022 R.C.S.No.

291/2022
Ramzan Ali Vs State and
others

ORDER BELOW EXH.5

The plaintiff has filed present application for temporary

injunction to restrain defendant No. 1 and 2 from paying the
compensation amount of acquisition of Survey No. 21/2 of Village
Korpana, Tah. Korpana, Dist. Chandrapur to defendant No. 3 to 7 till
the disposal of present suit.

Brief facts of the application are as follows :-

2. That, Survey No. 21/2 admeasuring 126 sq. mtr. Situated
at village Korpana, Tah. Korpana, Dist. Chandrapur (hereinafter for
the sake of brevity above said property is called as suit property) was
owned by the plaintiff’s father i.e. Sayyed Ahmed Ali. The suit
property is acquired for the National Highway by the Government.

3. Defendant No.2 being the Competent Authority

determined the compensation and passed award to pay compensation
amount to Sayyed Mohammad Ali S. A. Karim. However, said Sayyed
Mohammad Ali has no concern with the land under acquisition. But,
due to mistake or mischief his name was shown in the award.
However, lateron the name was corrected and compensation was made
payable to Sayyed Ahmed Ali Sayyed Abdul Karim.

4. The plaintiff’s father Sayyed Ahmed Ali s/o Sayyed

Abdul Karim is died on 28.11.2015. He is survived by two sons i.e.
R.C.S.No.291/2022 :2: Exh.5

plaintiff and Sayyed Shafaqat Ali and two daughters i.e. Shamina
Parveen and Ramzunnisa. However, their names are not yet mutated to
the revenue record of the suit property. Therefore, after the death of
father, the plaintiff, his brother and sisters are entitled for the
compensation of acquisition of suit property.

5. It is submitted that, on 31/10/2022 defendant No.2 issued

notice and directed defendant No. 3 to 7 to attend on 09.11.2022 to get
the compensation as per award dated 30.03.2022. The plaintiff
attended the office on 09.11.2022 and objected the payment of
compensation to defendant No. 3 to 7. However, defendant No.2 said
that structures of defendant No. 3 to 7 are there in the suit land and
therefore, they are entitled to compensation and posted the case on
05.12.2022 for order.

6. It is further submitted that proceeding before defendant

No.2 as regards disbursement of compensation to defendant No. 3 to 7
is illegal and without any jurisdiction. The plaintiff has strong prima-
facie case in his favour. Therefore, if the compensation is paid by
defendant No.2 to defendant No. 3 to 7, then the plaintiff will have to
suffer irreparable loss because defendant No. 3 to 7 have no property
of their own to harp on for recovery. Hence, the plaintiff prayed to
allow the application.

7. Defendant No. 1 and 2 filed their say at Exh.13 and

opposed the application by contending that deceased Sayyed Ahmed
Ali S. A. Karim was the owner of suit property. Central Government
published notification under Section 3A of National Highways Act
about the acquisition of 2.26 Sq. Mtrs. Land of suit property for the
R.C.S.No.291/2022 :3: Exh.5

highway. After publication no objection was raised within 21 days

about the ownership and acquisition of land.

8. After the publication Deputy Superintendent of Land

Record and other agencies collectively measured area for the purpose
of highway. During the measurement defendant No.2 came to know
that there is construction of defendant No. 3 to 7 over the suit land.
Thereafter, defendant No.2 declared the award on 10.03.2022 under
Section 3G of the National Highway Act by following proper
procedure.

9. Defendant No.2 thereafter issued notices to the concerned

land owners including deceased Sayyed Abdul Mohd. Ali S. A.
Karim. However, after issuing the notice no one appeared before
defendant No.2 on behalf of the deceased, hence further action was
stopped. Thereafter, defendant No.2 gave notices to defendant No. 3 to
7 as they found owner and possessor of the suit land. Thereafter, the
plaintiff filed application on 03.10.2022 for issuing compensation in
his favour being legal heir of the deceased.

10. Defendant No.2 issued notices on 09.11.2022 to the

plaintiff and defendant No. 3 to 7 to resolve the dispute of
compensation amount. After the appearance of parties defendant No.2
asked them to wait for further order of this Court. However, defendant
No. 1 and 2 are ready to disburse the compensation amount to proper
persons as per the procedure. The plaintiff has filed false and
fabricated application against present defendants. Hence, they prayed
to reject the application.

11. Heard arguments of Learned advocate Mr. R.B.Khanke

R.C.S.No.291/2022 :4: Exh.5

for the plaintiff and Learned A.G.P. Mr. Nagpure for defendant No.1
and 2. Perused the record. Following points arise for my
determination to which I have recorded my findings thereon for the
reasons stated below.

No. Points Findings

1 Whether the plaintiff proves prima-facie No
case in his favour?

2 Whether the balance of convenience No

lies in favour of the plaintiff?

3 Whether the plaintiff will suffer No

irreparable loss if the injunction is not
granted?
4 What order ? The application is
rejected

12. Point No. 1 to 3 are connected to each other. Therefore,

in order to avoid repetition of facts I am discussing point No. 1 to 3
together.
REASONS

13. Present suit is filed for declaration that the proceedings

for disbursement of compensation to defendant No. 3 to 7 are without
jurisdiction and nullity and further for perpetual injunction to restrain
defendant No. 1 and 2 from paying compensation of acquisition of the
suit property to defendant No. 3 to 7. However, record shows that
plaintiff has not claimed any relief about his own right in the alleged
compensation amount.

14. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father i.e. Sayyed
Ahmed Ali Sayyed Abdul Karim was owner of the suit property. On
R.C.S.No.291/2022 :5: Exh.5

perusal of 7/12 extract of suit property, it reveals that there are entries
in the other rights column showing interest and rights of various
persons including defendant No.5 in it. The plaintiff has not given any
explanation in the suit or present application about the alleged entries
mentioned in other rights column of 7/12 extract. This itself shows
that the plaintiff is trying to suppress some material facts from the
court.

15. As per award dated 10.03.2022 it is seen that 126 Sq.

Mtrs land of the suit property is acquired for highway under the
provisions of National Highways Act. The competent authority found
construction of defendant No. 3 to 7 in the suit property and
accordingly valuation of the construction was done and on that basis
award was passed.

16. Considering the prayer of temporary injunction, it is

necessary to quote the provisions of Section 3H (4) of the National
Highways Act for ready reference which reads as under -

If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the

amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any
part thereof is payable, the Competent Authority shall refer the
dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original
jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.

17. The provisions clearly shows that the issue of

apportionment of compensation amount firstly has to be raised before
the Competent Authority and thereafter the Competent Authority shall
refer dispute to the Civil Court. The plaintiff himself has mentioned in
para 5 of present application that he has objected the payment of
R.C.S.No.291/2022 :6: Exh.5

compensation to defendant No. 3 to 7 by filing application before the

competent authority. The plaintiff further submitted that the competent
authority has posted the case for order on 05.12.2022.

18. As per the provisions of Section 41 (h) of the Specific

Relief Act, the injunction cannot be granted when equally efficacious
relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of the
proceedings. Record shows that the plaintiff has raised the objection
before the competent authority for the redressal of his grievance.

19. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the Competent

Authority refused to refer the dispute to Civil Court as contemplated
under Section 3H (4) of National Highways Act. Therefore, as per the
provisions of Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff is
not entitled for the temporary injunction as prayed.

20. Furthermore, the plaintiff himself submitted in para 1 of

the plaint that his father i.e. Sayyed Ahmed Ali Sayyed Abdul Karim
is survived by two sons i.e. the plaintiff and Sayyed Shafaqat Ali and
two daughters Shameena Parveen and Ramzunnisa. However, the
plaintiff’s brother and sisters are not party to the present suit. The
plaintiff has not given any reason why his brother and sisters are not
made party to the suit. In such circumstances, the possibility can not
be ruled out that defendant No. 3 to 7 might have acquired title
through the other heirs of deceased Sayyed Ahmed Ali.

21. The plaintiff has claimed temporary injunction against

defendant No. 1 and 2 to restrain them from paying the compensation
amount to defendant No. 3 to 7. The injunction claimed by the
plaintiff, if granted, is going to affect the right and interest of
R.C.S.No.291/2022 :7: Exh.5

defendant No. 3 to 7. The plaintiff has not made defendant No. 3 to 7

as a party to the present application. Thus, conduct of the plaintiff
shows that he has not come to the court with the clean hands.

22. Considering the above discussion it is seen that there is

no prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has already
raised objection before the competent authority who is empowered to
refer the dispute of apportionment of the compensation amount to the
Civil Court. Therefore, no irreparable loss will be caused to the
plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted in his favour.
Hence, the balance of convenience does not lies in favour of the
plaintiff. Consequently, I answer point No. 1 to 3 in the negative and
in answer to point No. 4, I pass the following order.

ORDER
1. The application for temporary injunction is rejected.

2. No order as to costs.

( Pronounced in open court )

Digitally signed by
PRAVIN
NARAYANRAO
KULKARNI
Date: 2023.01.06
17:13:50 +0530

Date:- 06/01/2023 (P.N. Kulkarni)

nd
2 Jt. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),
Chandrapur
R.C.S.No.291/2022 :8: Exh.5

C E RT I FI CAT E

“I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. File order are

same word for word as per original order.”

Name of Steno : J.P.Mungle

Court Name : 2nd Jt. Civil Judge S. D., Chandrapur
Order Date : 06-01-2023
Order signed by : 06-01-2023
presiding officer on
Order uploaded on : 06-01-2023

…...