KAUSHALAYABAI BHAGWAN TANGADE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:12306
                                                     1                      WP 6-2019.odt




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 6 OF 2019

                        KAUSHALAYABAI BHAGWAN TANGADE AND OTHERS
                                          VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                                …
             Mr. Sudhir K. Chavan – Advocate for Petitioners
             Mr. A.D. Wange – AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, State
             Mr. S.E. Shekade – Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 6
                                                …

                                   CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                   DATE          : 18.03.2026

             ORDER:
             1.      Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.P. for

             respondent Nos.1 to 3, State authorities and learned Counsel for

             respondent Nos.4 to 6.


             2.      The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2018

             passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition, Jayakwadi Project),

             Beed, whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking reference

             of the dispute to the Civil Court came to be rejected.


             3.      Learned Counsel – Mr. Sudhir Chavan for the petitioners submits

             that pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land

             Acquisition Act, 1894 lands bearing Survey Nos.240, 241, 4 and 169

             situated at village Kalsambar, Tq. and Dist. Beed were acquired. At the
                                          2                      WP 6-2019.odt


time of acquisition, the names of respondent Nos.4 to 6 were recorded in

the revenue record, though the said lands were jointly owned by the

petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6. It is submitted that the petitioners

did not receive any share in respect of compensation of Survey Nos.240

and 241, whereas acquisition in respect of Survey Nos.4 and 169 is

concerned, there was in fact a partition between the parties, but the same

was not reflected in the 7/12 extract. Consequently, the entire

compensation came to be received by respondent Nos.4 to 6. The

petitioners, therefore, filed an application before respondent No.3

seeking reference of the dispute to the Civil Court. Though respondent

Nos.4 to 6 gave consent for reference in respect of Survey Nos.4 and 169,

they opposed the reference regarding Survey Nos.240 and 241 and

claimed entitlement to the entire compensation. Respondent No.3

rejected the application on the ground that the objection was raised after

a period of 20 years and, therefore, was belated.


4.    Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is exclusively

within the domain of the Civil Court to decide inter se rights and title

between the parties, and respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to

adjudicate such issues. It is submitted that respondent No.3 has exceeded

his jurisdiction in rejecting the application.


5.    Per contra, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned

Counsel Mr. S.E. Shekade for respondent Nos.4 to 6 support the
                                        3                          WP 6-2019.odt


impugned order. It is submitted that the compensation amount has

already been withdrawn pursuant to the award. It is further contended

that partition had already taken place and that respondent Nos.4 to 6 are

entitled to Survey Nos.240 and 241. It is also submitted that the names of

the petitioners were not recorded in the revenue record at the relevant

time and, therefore, the compensation was rightly paid to respondent

Nos.4 to 6. It is further submitted that appropriate proceedings have

already been initiated before the competent authority.


6.    Having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and upon

perusal of the impugned order, it appears that respondent No.3 has

rejected the application by virtually adjudicating the rights of the parties.

Respondent No.3 has recorded findings to the effect that the petitioners

failed to produce documentary evidence of ownership and that the

objection was raised after a delay of 20 years, and therefore, the same

was time-barred.


7.    However, upon perusal of the provisions of the Land Acquisition

Act, there is no limitation prescribed for seeking a reference to the Civil

Court for adjudication of disputes regarding apportionment or title.

Neither the learned A.G.P. nor the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.4

to 6 have been able to point out any provision empowering respondent

No.3 to reject such an application on the ground of delay.
                                           4                      WP 6-2019.odt


8.       In fact, respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to decide disputed

questions of title or inter se rights between the parties. Such disputes are

required to be referred to the competent Civil Court. By recording

findings on ownership and rejecting the application on the ground of

delay, respondent No.3 has exceeded his jurisdiction and passed an order

which is unsustainable in law. In view of the above, the impugned order

deserves to be quashed and set aside.


9.       In view thereof, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated

29.09.2018 passed by the Deputy Collector (Acquisition, Jayakwadi

Project), Beed is quashed and set aside.


10.      The matter be referred to the Principal Civil Court of original

Jurisdiction for proper adjudication of the reference.


11.      Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.




                                               [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                         JUDGE


Pooja Kale/