Dameshwar S/O Tikaram Bisen And ... vs The Union Of India, Ministry Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15426 Bom

                                                           wp206.18.odt
                               1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

               WRIT PETITION NO. 206 OF 2018


PETITIONERS: 1 Dameshwar Tikaram Bisen,
               aged about 60 years, Occ. Agri,

              2. Indraraj Tikaram Bisen,
                 aged about 58 years, Occ. Agriculturist

              3. Chandrarekha d/o Tikaram w/o Indraraj Turkar,
                 aged about 62 years, Occ. Household work

              4. Hirabai Makhansingh Pawar,
                 aged about 55 years, Occ. Household Work

               Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, R/o Civil Lines, Ingle Chowk
               Gondia, Tah. And Dist. Gondia.

              5. Anbandabai Tikarambhau Bisen (Dead)
                 Petitioner No.4, R/o. Mandla (M.P)
                 through their power of attorney holder
                 Zhalaksingh Tikarambhau Bisen,
                 aged about 68 years, Occ. Agri.
                 R/o. Civil Lines, Ingle Square, Gondia,
                 Tah. And Dist. Gondia.

                                   ...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS: 1] Union of India, Ministry of Railway,
                through Divisional Manager, South-Eastern
                Railway Manager, Nagpur.

                 2] The State of Maharashtra, through therefore
                    Collector, Gondia, Tah. And Dist. Gondia.

                 3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                    Bagh & Itiyadoh Project No.10, Gondia,
                    Tah. And Dist. Gonida.
                                                                                wp206.18.odt
                                              2

                         4] Shri Ranchandra Devasthan, Ram Mandir
                               through Mahant Bharatdas Koushaldas
                               Vaishnau Bairagi, aged about 55 years,
                               Occ. Nil, R/o. Railtoli, Ram Mandir, Gondia,
                               Tah. And Dist. Gondia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Mr. R.K.Borkar, Advocate for petitioners.
                 Mr. V.M.Gadkari, Advocate for respondent No.1.
                 Ms. T.Khan, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

                                       DATE          : 27/10/2021.

1]                 Heard Mr. Borkar, learned counsel for petitioners,

Mr. Gadkari, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Ms. T. Khan,

learned AGP for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Ramteke, learned

counsel for Respondent No.4 is absent.

2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3] The present petition challenges the judgment dated

10.12.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Gondia, in L.A.C. No.1/2003, whereby the application under

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, filed by the present

petitioners came to be dismissed and it was held that Respondent

No.4 was entitled to the amount of compensation.

wp206.18.odt

4] Mr. Borkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that Respondent No. 4 has no title to the property, which was

acquired by Respondent No.1, inasmuch as Regular Civil Suit No.

207/2012, filed by Respondent No. 4, against the present

petitioners, claiming title to the land of Khasra No. 93, admeasuring

300 Sq.mtr., situated at Azad Ward, Gondia, is presently pending, in

which Respondent No. 4 has sought declaration of having acquired

title, by way of adverse possession. He therefore submits that the

averments in Regular Civil Suit No. 207/2012 itself indicate the

ownership of the petitioners and not of Respondent No. 4. He

further submits that no document of title has been considered by the

learned Reference Court for the purpose of holding Respondent

No. 4 entitled to receive the compensation, in spite of the fact that it

has been observed in para 9 of the impugned judgment that the

name of the applicants/ petitioners is recorded in the revenue record

as the owners. He further submits that the finding rendered by the

Reference Court that Respondent No. 4 is the real owner of the

property, is contrary to the revenue record, which have to be taken

into consideration, as the Reference Court cannot enter into a

controversy to determine the title. Reliance is placed on the wp206.18.odt

judgment of the Full Bench of Patna High Court in Amarsingh Yadav

and another vrs. Shanti Devi and others, AIR 1987 PATNA 191. He

therefore submits that the judgment as passed by the learned

Reference Court cannot be sustained in law. He submits that the

judgment in reference was sought to be reviewed, which has been

dismissed on 18.7.2017, without considering the fact that the

question of title was pending before the Civil Court.

5] Mr. Gadkari, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1

submits that the payment of compensation be made subject to the

result of Regular Civil Suit No. 207/2012, in which the entitlement

of Respondent No. 4 would be decided.

6] It is a settled position of law that a Reference Court

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot entertain a

dispute regarding title to the property in question, which has to be

decided by the Civil Court. In the instant matter, the suit filed by

Respondent No. 4 claiming title by way of adverse possession over

the property in question, was filed in the year 2009, bearing Regular

Civil Suit No. 86/2009, which has been renumbered as Regular Civil

Suit No. 207/2012. Since the question regarding title, was already wp206.18.odt

subjudice before the court of competent jurisdiction, it was

impermissible for the Reference Court to have entered into the

controversy and decide that Respondent No. 4 was the owner of the

property in question and therefore, entitled to compensation. It

clearly appears that this has been done, in spite of the pendency of

Regular Civil Suit No. 86/2009, having been brought to his notice, as

is reflected from the order dated 18.7.2017, passed in Review

Application M.J.C. No.32/2014.

7] Considering the above position, the order in review

dated 18.7.2017 as well as the judgment dated 10.12.2012 passed in

L.A.C. No. 1/2003 cannot be sustained and both are hereby quashed

and set aside. It is however made clear that any entitlement of the

petitioners or of Respondent No. 4 to the amount of compensation

shall be subject to the result in Regular Civil Suit No. 207/2012. The

petition is accordingly allowed in above terms. No order as to costs.

JUDGE Digitally sign byRAJESH VASANTRAO JALIT Location:

Rvjalit                                               Signing Date:28.10.2021 16:51