Bombay High Court
ARUN KRISHNA SUTAR AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The dispute must be referred to the District Court, Raigad, and the enhanced compensation held in deposit pending the court's order.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the apportionment of enhanced compensation under Section 28‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming that the dispute should be referred to the competent court under Section 30 of the same Act. The High Court noted that a reference court had already ordered referral of a related dispute and that a civil suit (Regular Suit No. 12 of 2021) was pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mahad. After hearing counsel for all parties and allowing service of respondents 6 and 7, the Court held that the present dispute must also be referred to the District Court, Raigad, which will allocate it to the pending civil suit. The Court directed the Sub‑Divisional Officer to refer the matter and to deposit the enhanced compensation with the District Court, to be kept in a fixed deposit until disbursal as ordered. All pending applications were disposed of, and the writ petition was closed.
Issues considered
- Whether the dispute over apportionment of compensation under Section 28‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should be referred to the competent court under Section 30 of the Act
- Whether the enhanced compensation should be held pending referral
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 28-A, 30
Subjects
- Land Acquisition
- Compensation
- Apportionment
- Section 30 referral
- Writ petition
- District Court jurisdiction
Judgment
bipin prithiani
1
910-wp-8032.26.doc
`IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8032 OF 2026
Arun Krishna Sutar & Ors. … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
******
Mr. Nilesh Wable for Petitioners.
Mrs. P. M. Joshi-Deshpande, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Ajinkya B. Navale i/by Mr. Vishal B. Navale for Respondent
BIPIN
DHARMENDER
PRITHIANI
Digitally signed by
BIPIN DHARMENDER
PRITHIANI
Date: 2026.09.02
Nos.4 and 5.
Mr. Aniket Shitole i/by Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar for Respondent
10:54:29 +0530
Nos.6 and 7.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
. The learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court
that in terms of order dated 31 st July 2026, efforts were made to
serve respondent Nos.6 and 7. While respondent No.7 could be
served, respondent No.6 is yet to be served.
2. At this stage, Mr. Shitole, learned counsel submits that he
has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent Nos.6 and 7.
He makes a statement that vakalatnama on behalf of the said
respondents can be filed today. Permission is granted to file
vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos.6 and 7, within two
days from today.
bipin prithiani
2
910-wp-8032.26.doc
3. In the order dated 1st July 2026, this Court has observed as
follows :
“. Heard Mr. Wable, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that in the light of a
recent judgement and order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the
Reference Court under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, the dispute raised by the petitioners with regard to
apportionment as per application dated 08.06.2026 submitted
before the Special Land Acquisition Officer / Sub-Divisional
Officer, ought to be referred to the Competent Court under
Section 30 of the aforesaid Act.
3. The Reference Court passed the aforesaid order on a
proceeding initiated by respondent Nos.4 and 5. The dispute
appears to have arisen between the parties in the backdrop of
a suit for declaration and injunction filed by respondent
Nos.4 and 5 relying on a Will, which is pending before the
Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Mahad.
4. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 to 3 i.e. the State authorities has instructions to make a
statement that the dispute can indeed be referred to the Court
under Section 30 of the aforesaid Act.
5. While respondent Nos.4, 5 and 8 to 11 are represented
by counsel, today there is no representation on behalf of
respondent Nos.6 and 7 as the petition has come up for
consideration for the first time. We are of the opinion that
this petition can be disposed of on the returnable date in the
light of the statement made by the learned AGP and the
submissions made on behalf of the respondents already
represented by counsel.
6. In view of the above, issue notice for final disposal,
returnable on 14.07.2026, to be included in the
supplementary list.
7. Mr. Joshi-Deshpande, learned AGP waives notice on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Navale, learned counsel
waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Mr.
Sawant, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of
bipin prithiani
3
910-wp-8032.26.doc
respondent Nos.8 to 11.
8. Additionally, the petitioners are permitted to serve
respondent Nos.6 and 7 by way of private service and to file
affidavit of service before the next date of listing.
9. In the meanwhile, it is directed that the enhanced
amount of compensation as determined by the Reference
Court shall not be disbursed till the next date of listing.”
4. Now respondent Nos.6 and 7 are also before this Court. We
find that there is indeed a dispute with regard to apportionment
between petitioners and respondent Nos.6 and 7. Since the
proceedings in the present case are governed by the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, in such a situation, recourse can be had to
Section 30 of the said Act, so that the dispute between the parties
can be referred to the Competent Court i.e. the District Court at
Alibaug. As recorded in the above quoted order dated 1 st July
2026, a suit is already pending between the parties with regard to
Will relied upon by respondent No.4 before the Competent Court
at Mahad Dist. Raigad.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited
attention of this Court to exhibit ‘G’, which is an application
dated 8th June 2026 filed on behalf of the petitioner before the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 under Section 30 of the aforesaid Act.
Considering the dispute that has arisen between the parties, it
would be necessary for the said respondents to refer the dispute, in
an appropriate manner, to the Competent Court under Section 30
of the aforesaid Act i.e. the principal Court of original jurisdiction.
6. Since the aforementioned Suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.
bipin prithiani
4
910-wp-8032.26.doc
12 of 2021 filed by respondent No.4 is pending before the Court
of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mahad, Dist. Raigad, it would be
appropriate that the aforesaid dispute is also placed before the said
Court, to be taken up for consideration with the pending suit.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of,
directing respondent No.3-Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) to refer
the dispute between the parties to the District Court, Raigad.
Upon such papers being received by the District Court, Raigad, the
Principal District Judge shall allot the same to the Court of Civil
Judge Junior Division, Mahad, where the aforementioned Regular
Civil Suit No. 12 of 2021 is pending consideration.
8. The enhanced compensation determined under Section 28A
of the aforesaid Act shall be deposited by respondent No.3 before
the said Court, within two weeks of referring the dispute. The
concerned Court shall deposit the said amount in a fixed deposit
to earn interest for the benefit of all the parties. The disbursal of
the amount shall be undertaken as per order of the said Court.
9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Checking your session…