Bombay High Court
BALAJI MAROTRAO SARSEversusRAMRAO MAROTRAO SARSE AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appellant is estopped from claiming further compensation, and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The appellant, Balaji Marotrao Sarse, objected to the payment of compensation to respondent No.1 for land acquired for the Isapur Right Canal project. He had earlier consented to release an advance amount to the same respondent and claimed that a compromise decree in a 1998 suit established his ownership of the land. The reference court, applying Section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code, held that once the appellant had consented to the advance payment, he was estopped from claiming further compensation, and that a suit and compromise could not be filed after the land was in State possession. The court dismissed the appellant's objection and found no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the first appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is estopped from claiming compensation after consenting to release the advance amount to the respondent.
- Whether a compromise decree is admissible when the land has already been acquired by the State.
- Whether the appeal challenging the reference court's order has any merit.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 30
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- estoppel
- compromise decree
- Civil Procedure Code
- Section 30 CPC
- appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38170
FA 486/06
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
36 FIRST APPEAL NO. 486 OF 2006
BALAJI MAROTRAO SARSE
VERSUS
RAMRAO MAROTRAO SARSE AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. B.G. Deshmukh
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. D.R. Korde
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr. P.P. Mandlik
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : August 17, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective
parties.
2. By this appeal, the objector/appellant assails the judgment and award
dated 12.1.2006 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Nanded in Lar No. 21/2001 whereby the objection petition filed by appellant
for receiving compensation in respect of acquired land came to be
dismissed.
3. The lands of the appellant was acquired for Project Isapur Right Canal
Distributory K.M. No. 107 to 111. The appellant herein raised objection for
paying compensation to present respondent No. 1 for the acquired land
from Gat No. 144 to the extent of his share. As the objection was raised,
the matter was referred to civil court under section 30 of Civil Procedure
Code. Before Civil Court, both the parties led evidence. It has come in the
evidence that the appellant/objector gave consent for releasing the advance
payment in favour of respondent No. 1/herein. Though the
appellant/objector has tried to contend that there was decree passed in Civil
FA 486/06
2
Suit No. 63/1998 dated 12.12.1998 before the Civil Judge, J.D., Bhokar and
the suit was compromised. On the basis of compromise decree, the
appellant/objector contended that the acquired land belongs to the
appellant.
4. After considering the evidence led by both the parties, the learned
reference court has not accepted the contents of the compromise decree by
recording finding that once the property was in possession of the State
Government, both the parties are not supposed to file such suit and
compromise. More particularly, the reference court has recorded finding that
there was already consent given by the present appellant/objector for
releasing the advance amount in favour of present respondent No. 1.
Therefore, once there was consent given by the objector/appellant and on
the basis of that amount was released in favour of present respondent No.
1, even for paying amount for remaining compensation, I find that the
appellant has estopped from claiming that amount. Hence, I hold that there
is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned reference
court.
5. First appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…