Bombay High Court

SMT INDUMATI RATILAL SETHIA AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The High Court held that factual disputes over land ownership must be resolved by a civil court before any compensation can be disbursed.

Summary

The petitioners, claiming to be legal heirs of Ratilal Sethia, sought enforcement of a compensation award arising from the purchase of agricultural land (Gat No.453) that had been auctioned by a bank after being mortgaged by Respondent No.7. The land was bought by Mr. Chandrakant Kardile from Respondent No.7, but the consent award dated 02/07/2018 was issued in the name of Respondent No.7, leading the petitioners to assert their entitlement to the award amount. The High Court observed that there are several disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and the right to the compensation, which must be resolved in a civil court. Consequently, the Court declined to adjudicate the substantive claim and directed that the award amount remain with Respondent No.4 (the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar) until the civil suit determines the rightful owner. The writ petition was therefore disposed, and the time spent on the petition will not count towards any limitation period for filing the civil action.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate forum for determining the disputed ownership of the land and entitlement to the compensation award?
Whether the High Court can directly award the compensation amount in a writ petition despite factual disputes.

Subjects

writ petition
land ownership
compensation award
civil court jurisdiction
disputed facts
auction sale
mortgage

Judgment

                                     (1)                 938-WP-10748-2018




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  938 WRIT PETITION NO. 10748 OF 2018

                   Smt Indumati Ratilal Sethia And Ors
                                 VERSUS
                  The State Of Maharashtra And Others
                                   ...
Mr. Pratik Kailasrao Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. A. V. Hon, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Mr. A. G. Ambetkar Advocate for Respondent No. 7.

                                  CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                              JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

                                  DATE     : 20th AUGUST 2026.

PC :-

1.      Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2.      The present petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of one Ratilal

Sethiya, who purchased the agricultural land bearing Gat No.453,

situated at village Palve (Kh). Tal. Parner, Dist. Ahilyanagar, from Mr.

Chandrakant Kardile. Mr. Kardile had purchased the land from

Respondent No.7 in an auction conducted through the bank. The land

was mortgaged by respondent No.7 in favour of respondent No.6/bank.
                                     (2)                     938-WP-10748-2018




It is in that auction proceeding, the land was purchased by Mr. Kardile. It

is now stated that though the petitioner’s father had already purchased

the land on the date of award, still the award was passed in the name of

respondent No.7 i.e. consent award on 02/07/2018.

3.     This Court thus finds that there are several disputed questions of

fact in the present matter. The petitioner will have to strictly prove their

entitlement to receive the compensation by proving their ownership over

the land. As of today, the amount under consent award is reportedly

lying with Respondent No.4 i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar.

4.     This Court finds that as there are disputed questions of fact, this

Court need not go into that aspect. It would be appropriate to direct the

parties to approach the Civil Court and to establish their respective

rights. It is only thereafter it would be proper to disburse the amount to

the rightful owner, after the decision of the Civil Court.

5.     Considering above, we pass following order:

(i)    Writ petition stands disposed off.

(ii)   The amount be kept with Respondent no.4/Sub-Divisional Officer,

Ahmednagar, or such other authorities wherever the amount is lying, till
                                          (3)                 938-WP-10748-2018




the rights of the parties are finally determined.

(iii) Time consumed in prosecuting this writ petition shall be excluded

while calculating the period of limitation for approaching the civil court

or any other competent authority, as the case may be.

(iv) The amount shall not be disbursed till the rights of the parties are

determined.

(v)          With these, writ petition stands disposed off.



    [JITENDRA JAIN, J.]                            [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
D.A.ETHAPE

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…