Bombay High Court

SMT. BABIBAI ATMARAM PATIL AND ANR.versusSHRI. NATHURAM PARSHURAM PATIL AND ORS.

Decided: 21 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

Impleadment cannot be permitted in execution proceedings of a land acquisition reference; aggrieved persons must pursue separate remedies.

Summary

The petitioners, Babibai Atmaram Patil and an associate, applied for their impleadment in execution proceedings, claiming to be sisters of Decree‑Holder No. 1. Their applications (Exhibits‑24 and 25) were filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC and were rejected on 22 July 2015. The petition challenged that rejection, arguing they should be allowed to join the execution suit. The Court held that impleadment is not permissible in matters arising from a land acquisition reference; any aggrieved party must seek redress under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or file a separate suit for their share. Consequently, the order rejecting the applications was affirmed and the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether impleadment is permissible in execution proceedings concerning a land acquisition reference.
Whether the executing court can entertain claims for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Subjects

impleadment
execution proceedings
land acquisition
Civil Procedure Code
Order XXI Rule 97
compensation
decree‑holder

Judgment

  2026:BHC-AS:38841
                         k                               1/1                          29 wp 1785.17 as.doc




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                             WRIT PETITION NO.1785 OF 2017

                         Babibai Atmaram Patil & Anr.                                    ....Petitioners
                              V/S
                         Nathuram Parshuram Patil & Ors.                                 ....Respondents
                                                      _________

                         Mr. Rahul Thakur for the Petitioners.
                         Mr. Rajendra Khaire i/b Sagar A. Mane for Respondent No.1.
                                                           __________

                                                   CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                                   DATE : 21 SEPTEMBER 2026.
                         P.C.:


                         1.       The Petition challenges order dated 22 July 2015, rejecting
                         Applications at Exhibits-24 and 25 under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code
                         of Civil Procedure, 1908. By those Applications Petitioners had sought
                         their impleadment in the execution proceedings contending that they
                         are sisters of Decree-Holder No. 1.


                         2.       It is well-settled position that impleadment cannot be permitted
                         in respect of a Land Acquisition Reference. If any person is aggrieved by
                         the award of compensation, he/she can file proceedings under the
                         provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or a Suit for recovery of his/her
                         share. The Executing Court was not expected to decide the claims of the
                         Petitioners. Applications are rightly rejected. No interference is
                         warranted in impugned orders. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.


                                                                                 (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
                          katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam                                 Page No. 1 of 1
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/09/2026 11:16:40

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.