Bombay High Court

GAHININATH DUDHAJI BADE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The writ petition is not maintainable; petitioner No. 6 must first establish his independent right to the property before claiming compensation.

Summary

The petitioners, a group of landowners, filed a writ petition seeking payment of compensation for land acquired by the State of Maharashtra. While petitioners 1‑5 had already received compensation, petitioner No. 6, a priest of Shrikshetra Nagnath Sansthan, had not, alleging that a change of name and a recent heirship certificate complicated his claim. The State argued that the petitioner’s status as a priest of a trust not shown as the legal owner created uncertainty about the rightful recipient of the compensation, and that no information had been received from the Charity Commissioner. The Court noted that legal heirship alone does not confer a right to compensation for acquired land and that the name change and mutation occurred after the award was passed. Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and directed petitioner No. 6 to pursue his claim independently before seeking compensation.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the disputed ownership and claimant status of petitioner No. 6.
Whether legal heirship of a deceased trust priest suffices to claim compensation for land acquisition.
Whether the change of name and mutation of records affect entitlement to compensation.
Whether compensation can be paid to a petitioner who is a priest of a trust not shown as the legal owner of the land.

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
legal heirship
trust
mutation
writ petition
maintainability
name change

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39938
62-WP.8227.2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

62 WRIT PETITION NO. 8227 OF 2021

Gahininath Dudhaji Bade And Others
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. S. R. Karad a/w. Mr. Y. L. Bidve, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Anand Chawre with Ms. Vandana Sadawarte, Advocates for
Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
…

CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026

PER COURT :

1. At the outset, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners seeks

leave to correct the cause title by showing Petitioner No. 6 in his

individual capacity and by deleting the words “Shrikshetra Nagnath

Sansthan, Manur, through the Priest”.

2. Leave granted.

3. The only grievance in the petition by all these Petitioners is that

the amount of compensation was not paid to them by the acquiring

body. During the pendency of the petition, it is now submitted that

Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 have already received the amount of

compensation towards the acquisition. In the case of Petitioner No. 6,

though he is the owner of Land Gut Nos. 455 and 462 from Village

Badewadi, Taluka Shirur (Kasar), District Beed, the compensation is
Sayyed 1/3
62-WP.8227.2021.doc

still pending.

4. In the petition, a reply has been filed by the Government. It is

the case of the Respondents that since the Petitioner has shown himself

as a priest of the Sansthan and the name of the Sansthan is not shown

to be the owner of the said property, it is disputed as to whom the

amount needs to be paid. It is also pointed out that a letter was issued

to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Beed, seeking particulars about

the Trust named “Shrikshetra Nagnath Sansthan”. However, no such

information has been received. It is only for this reason that the

Government did not pay the amount of compensation to Petitioner No.

6. The whole confusion is only because of the wrong nomenclature of

Petitioner No. 6, as he has shown himself to be a priest of the

Sansthan. It is now pointed out to this Court that the name of the

present Petitioner appears in the record. In the petition, his name is

shown as Nagesh Puranik Manurkar Maharaj, whereas in the Revenue

Record, his name is shown as Guru Virupaksha Shivacharya Maharaj

Manurkar. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners has invited

attention of this Court to a Gazette notice publication, wherein the

name of Nagesh Vishwanath Puranik was changed to Guru Virupaksha

Shivacharya Manurkar Maharaj. He, therefore, submits that he was

shown to be a priest when the Notification was issued on 12.07.2018.

5. This Court had issued notice that the award was passed in 2023,

whereas the name of the Petitioner was changed in the year 2018. It is

Sayyed 2/3
62-WP.8227.2021.doc

only after the award was passed that a mutation entry was changed in

the name of the Petitioner on 22.02.2024. Till today, there is no

response from the office of the Charity Commissioner to the letter

issued by the Government.

6. There is one more factor, i.e., the Petitioner has now received

Heirship Certificate No. 167, whereby he is declared as the legal heir of

one Guru Kiri Shivacharya Manukar Maharaj. Mr. Chawre, learned

Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, rightly points out that, in the said

certificate, it is clearly mentioned that the Petitioner is declared as the

legal heir of the deceased only formally and that no one shall claim

any right in the property of the deceased, and his heirship shall not

cause prejudice to anybody’s right.

7. Considering the above, it is clear that legal heirship is not

sufficient to claim the compensation for the land acquired. In view of

this, the Petitioner as well as the Respondents have produced relevant

documents on record.

8. Considering all these disputed questions of facts, this Court finds

that it would not be appropriate to entertain the writ petition. It is

open for Petitioner No. 6 to claim his rights in the property

independently and thereafter claim the compensation.

9. Keeping all these points open, the writ petition stands disposed

off as not maintainable.

(JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)
Sayyed 3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…