MOHAN BABURAO GADADE (DIED) THROUGH LRS PADAMRAJ MOHAN GADADE AND OTHERSversusCOMPETENT AUTHORITY LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:37919

                                                 (1)               WP 9131 OF 2023.odt


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 9131 OF 2023

                                                             District : Osmanabad
                 Shri Mohan Baburao Gadade
                 Since deceased hence
                 Through Legal Representatives

           1.    Shri Padmaraj Mohan Gadde
                 Age: 45 year's, Occupation: Agriculture

           2.    Shri Rajkumar Mohan Gadade
                 Age: 55 year's, Occupation: Agriculture

           3.    Shri Mahaveer Mohan Gadade
                 Age: 52 year's, Occupation: Agriculture

           4.    Shri Ajit Mohan Gadade
                 Age: 40 year's, Occupation: Agriculture

           5.    Smt Savarna Anand Bhasme
                 Age: 50 year's, Occupation: Agriculture

           6.    Smt Surekha Mahaveer Ghole
                 Age: 48 year's, Occupation: Agriculture

           7.    Smt Sunita Satish Aagarthade
                 Age: 38 year's, Occupation: Agriculture

           8.    Smt Subhadrabai Mohan Gadade
                 Age: 75 year's, Occupation: Agriculture

                 All Resident of: Kakramba,
                 Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad.             ...PETITIONERS

                 VERSUS

           1.    The Competent Authority
                 Land Acquisition Officer,
                 Deputy Collector Land Acquisition,
                                                   (2)                                WP 9131 OF 2023.odt


        Manjara Project, Osmanabad.

2.      Shri Kamlakar Devidas Gadade,
        Age: 55 year's, Occupation: Agriculture
        Resident of: Kakramba, Taluka Tuljapur,
        District Osmanabad.                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mukul Kulkarni i/b. Mr. Umesh Mitkar, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondent-State
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              CORAM                        : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                              RESERVED DATE                : 11.08.2026
                              PRONOUNCED DATE: 21.08.2026

JUDGMENT :-

.        The Petitioner has put-forth his substantive prayer at prayer clause ‘A’

which reads thus:


         “A. The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
         certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in
         the nature of writ and thereby quash and set aside the
         judgment and order passed by the Respondent No. 1 in
         proceeding      No.    2015-16/Bhu.San./Ra.Ma.Ma.-361/Ati/
         Pu.Aa.-1/La.Va.D/C R – 05, 05-1 dated 31.03.2023
         (ANNEXURE I) and may further be pleased to reject the
         objection of the Respondent No. 2 dated 23.03.2022
         (ANNEXURE F) and issue appropriate order for the said
         purpose;”

1.      Subject-matter: With a grievance that the land record which is varied

during implementation of consolidation scheme erringly showed his land in

the name of the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 prayed to the Respondent

no.1 to remit the dispute to the Civil Court u/s 3H-4 of the National Highways
                                       (3)                    WP 9131 OF 2023.odt


Act 1956. Feeling aggrieved by such relegation of the dispute to the District

Court, the Petitioner is before this Court.

Facts in brief:

a) The issue involved in this petition is very short, and also no more

     res-integra.

b) Deceased Petitioner Mohan Gadade and Respondent No.2 – Kamlakar

     Gadade are cousin brothers. Mohan was owner and possessor of

     agricultural land comprised in Gut No.745 situated at Village Kakrambha,

     Taluka Tuljapur, District Dharashiv. Out of his holding, an area

     admeasuring 3900 sq.mt. was acquired by the acquiring body for

     expansion of the national Highway No.361. Mohan Gadade received award

     compensation against his acquired land.

c) Respondent No.2 – Kamlakar owns his agricultural land at Gut No.746 at

     village Kakrambha.

d)      For the purpose of expansion of the national Highway No.361, lands of

the Petitioners as also the land of Respondent No.2 situated in Gut no.746

came to be acquired.

e)      Entire procedure was followed for the acquisition. Joint measurement

was conducted. It was also re-conducted. At no point of time the Respondent

No.2 ever raised any dispute or objection on any point.
                                       (4)                        WP 9131 OF 2023.odt


f)    In due course, the award came to be passed and the award

compensation was also determined for both the parties by the acquiring body.

g)    Feeling dissatisfied with the award compensation, deceased Mohan filed

Arbitration Proceeding No.CR-313 before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator

declared award on 26-08-2019 enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs.

16,26,300/-.

h)    In the meantime, deceased Mohan raised objection to the compensation

granted to the Respondent no.2, for which the Respondent no.1 referred the

dispute to the Civil Court.

i)    In turn, the Respondent no.2 filed an objection with the Respondent

no.1 complaining that his 24 R land was shown in the name of deceased

Mohan by mistake in the Consolidation process itself. He prayed that until the

consolidation proceedings for correction were concluded, parties be relegated

to Civil court for determination of title and the amount may not be disbursed

to the Petitioner.

j)    Respondent no.1 conducted hearing, and noted that the objection was

not a rightful. Hence the authority recommended disbursement of the amount

to deceased Mohan.

k)    However, by order dated 31-03-2023, Respondent no.1 referred the

dispute to the Civil Court u/s 3H-4 of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner is before this Court.
                                       (5)                        WP 9131 OF 2023.odt


Submissions:

a)    Mr. Mukul Kulkarni i/b Mr. Mitkari, learned advocate for the petitioner

would submit that apparently, the only reason for referring the dispute to the

Civil Court is 2nd respondent’s contention that he shall go to the Consolidation

authorities for correction of the land record. That the proceedings under the

Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947

(for brevity “the Act of 1947”) have attained finality. The limitation to file such

challenge even under the Act of 1947 is lapsed long back, and hence the order

of referring dispute was absolutely unwarranted.

b)    Neither there was any cause of action to file the objection nor the record

even remotely suggests any water in 2nd respondent’s contention. That, where

there is no cause of action itself i.e. in the absence of any order correcting the

record, it would not be justifiable to refer the dispute to the civil court and to

withhold the disbursement.

c)    The last but not the least submission advanced by Mr. Mukul Kulkarni is

that the objection raised by the 2 nd respondent is merely to counter his

objection. Mr. Kulkarni submits that his claim against Respondent No.2 is

altogether different, and not based upon incorrect land record as is raised by

the 2nd respondent in his objection. With these submissions, learned advocate

for the Petitioner concludes his arguments.
                                        (6)                         WP 9131 OF 2023.odt


d)    On 03rd August 2023, this court issued notices to the parties indicating

that the Writ Petition shall be heard for final disposal at admission stage.

e)    Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, Mr. Amol Patale, learned

advocate marked his presence for Respondent no.1. Since earlier notice was

not served on the Respondent no.2, this court re-issued notice to him on

18th July 2024.

f)    The office remark show that the notice issued to the Respondent no.2

was served personally as per the bailiff report. However no one caused

appearance for 2nd respondent. On 12th January 2026, this court observed that

despite having been served the 2 nd respondent did not appear. A fresh notice

was directed to be issued to the 2 nd respondent. The Petitioner was set at

liberty to serve the Respondent no.2 by private mode of service, and to file an

affidavit of compliance.

g)    The Record depicts that the court notice was served on the 2 nd

respondent. The Petitioner also served him by speed post, and filed service

affidavit in the court.

h)    It further appears that 2 nd respondent opted not to engage any lawyer to

represent him in the court nor appeared personally. Instead, he sent his reply

by postal services. Vide order dated 29-07-2026, this Court recorded receipt of

the reply and a copy was directed to be given to the learned advocate fore the

Petitioner. It is thereafter today, the matter is listed for arguments.
                                     (7)                       WP 9131 OF 2023.odt


i)    Today also none appeared for the 2nd respondent. Hence this is court is

left with no option than to proceed on merits of the case hearing the learned

advocate for Petitioner, and on considering the reply received from the 2 nd

respondent. The reply is considered as submission of the 2nd respondent.

Discussion and consideration:

a)    I have heard Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, learned advocate for the Petitioner.

His sole reliance is upon Section 36-A of the 1947 Act, and the text of

Respondent no.2’s complaint.

b)    I have cautiously gone through the reply received from Respondent

No.2. He records his objection to the Petition. It is submitted that the

Petitioner suppressed the land record in the land acquisition proceeding. He

further submits that he raised objection before Respondent No.1, and at his

instance the matter is referred to the Civil Court. He submits that two

proceedings i.e. one at the behest of the Petitioner, and another at the behest

of him are pending before the Court, and the District Court be directed to

expedite the proceedings. There is nothing more in the reply affidavit. The

reply affidavit do not explain as to how the Court would have jurisdiction to

resolve the issue.

c)    Considering the submissions of the rival parties, I find that the only

issue before this Court is “the jurisdiction of Civil Court to adjudicate the

dispute raised by or sought to be raised by the 2 nd respondent with reference
                                        (8)                         WP 9131 OF 2023.odt


to the correction in the land record pertaining to the Fragmentation and

Consolidation proceedings”.

d)    For the sake of convenience, Section 36 A of the Act of 1947 is

reproduced as below:

     36A. Bar of jurisdiction.
     (1) No Civil Court or Mamlatdar's Court shall have jurisdiction to settle,
     decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be
     settled, decided or dealt with by the State Government or any officer or
     authority.
     (2) No order of the State Government or any such officer or authority made
     under this Act shall be questioned in any Civil, Criminal or Mamlatdar's Court.

e)    The objection application filed by 2 nd respondent before the 1st

respondent stands at page No.79 (Exh.F) of the Writ Petition compilation. The

applicant i.e. present Respondent No.2 has clearly stated that after

consolidation, his area is reduced and such area has fallen to the share of the

Petitioner. It is further submitted that the applicant proposed to approach the

Consolidation authorities for record correction, and till then the amount may

not be disbursed. It was further prayed to refer the issue to the Civil Court u/s

3H-4 of the 1956 Act to decide title.

f)    Petitioner has descriptively objected the application demonstrating the

position of law.

g)    At paragraph No.4 of the impugned order, Respondent No.1 observed

that since the objector i.e. present Respondent No.1 was to lodge his grievance

before the Consolidation officer for correction in the land record, the dispute
                                       (9)                        WP 9131 OF 2023.odt


deserved to be referred to the Civil court u/s 3H-4 of the 1956 Act.

h)    Section 3H-4 of the 1956 Act reads thus:

       3H. Deposit and payment of amount.—(1) ……..
       (2) ……….
       (3) ……….
       (4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part
       thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable,
       the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the
       principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose
       jurisdiction the land is situated.
       (5) ………
       (6) ………
       (5) ……….


i)    It is Respondent No.2’s case that he has title over the land which had

gone to Petitioners’ record due to errors committed while preparing the record

during consolidation scheme. He therefore candidly submitted that he

proposed to get the record corrected from the Consolidation authorities. On

this backdrop request was made to refer the matter to the Civil Court u/s 3H-4

of the Act of 1956.

j)    Apparently, the observations in the impugned order are hit by Section

36-A of the 1947 Act. 2nd respondent’s objection is as regards to the land

record which is changed after implementation of the 1947 Act in his area. As

of now, the land record in respect of the 3900 sq.mt. land in Gut No.745 stood

in the name of the deceased Mohan until it was acquired. Entire record of
                                      ( 10 )                    WP 9131 OF 2023.odt


acquisition shows the same record. At no point of time before the impugned

application, the Respondent No.2 ever disputed over the land area. The

decision of fragmentation and consolidation done by the authorities is holding

field. The land record was prepared in of it. In view of this, it is only within

the domain of the appropriate authority under the 1947 Act to resolve any

controversy arisen out of implementation of the consolidation Scheme, subject

to statutory limitation, if any.

k)     Neither the Civil Court i.e. District court in this Case, has any

jurisdiction to resolve any issue under the 1947 Act, nor unless the dispute is

resolved under the provisions of 1947 Act, the Civil court has any jurisdiction

to decide any controversy arising out of or in reference to the implementation

of the Consolidation Scheme.

l)     On the contrary, Section 31-A and Section 33 of the 1947 Act provide

for the appropriate remedy for correction in the record arising out of

implementation of the consolidation Scheme. For the sake of convenience, text

of both provisions is reproduced as below:

Section 31A :

     31A. Correction of clerical and arithmetical mistakes in scheme.
     - If, after a scheme has come into force, it appears to the Settlement
     Commissioner that the scheme is defective on account of any clerical or
     arithmetical mistake or error arising therein from any accidental slip or
     omission, and he is satisfied that the correction of such mistake or error
     would not vary the scheme in any material particular, he may by order in
     writing correct such mistake or error and publish his order in the
     prescribed manner.
                                       ( 11 )                     WP 9131 OF 2023.odt




      33. Power to vary or revoke scheme.
     - A scheme for the consolidation of holdings confirmed under this Act may at
     any time be varied or revoked by a subsequent scheme prepared, published and
     confirmed in accordance with this Act.

m)     Thus, 2nd respondent’s application for referring the matter to the Civil

Court and the impugned order of Respondent No.1 referring the dispute to the

District Court, both are misconceived. A beneficial reference can be made to

the Judgment and Order passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the

case of Nagendra Kesur Vs. the Competent Authority and ors. (Writ Petition

No.6463 of 2024 decided on 21-03-2025) . In the very identical set of

circumstances, it is held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to settle such

controversy.

Conclusion:
       For the reasons recorded, I conclude that,


       (i) ‘A dispute referring to correction in the land record created, formed

          or recorded in the fragmentation and consolidation proceeding

          under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of

          Holdings Act 1947 stands outside the jurisdiction of Civil Court;

       (ii) Assertion of title and dispute of title, based upon an allegation of

          incorrect land record created in the implementation of Bombay

          Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Act 1947, does not

          fall u/s 3H-4 of the National Highways Act 1956 ipso facto, unless
                                             ( 12 )                     WP 9131 OF 2023.odt


               and until the controversy is decided by the competent authority u/s

               31-A or 33 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and

               Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947.

             Hence, I record my finding that the impugned order dated 31-03-2023

passed by Respondent No.1 is illegal, and is liable to be struck down. This is a

fit case wherein directions are needed to be issued to Respondent No.1 in

exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence I

pass following order :


                                            ORDER

      I.        Writ Petition is allowed;
      II.       The impugned order dated 31-03-2023 passed by the Competent
                Authority @Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition -Manjra Project,
                Osmanabad      (Dharashiv)     in     file    No.   २०१५-१६/भूसं/राममा-
                ३६१/अति/पू.आ./पू. आ.-१/लवाद/सीआर -०५,०५-१, is quashed and set
                aside;
      III.      The Respondent no.1 i.e. the Competent Authority @Deputy
                Collector, Land Acquisition -Manjra Project, Osmanabad (Dharashiv)
                shall disburse to the Petitioner, the award amount within a period of
                Four weeks from the date of receiving this order; provided that
                petitioners satisfy respondent No.1 as to their status as legal
                representatives of deceased Mohan Baburao Gadade.
      IV.       No costs.



                                                             [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW