Bombay High Court
Mahadeo S/O Sukhdeo Rokade vs The Collector / Land Acquisition ... on 26 August, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8408
1 WP-5181-2022-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5181 OF 2022
PETITIONER Shri. Mahadeo S/o Sukhdeo Rokade,
Aged about 67 years, Occupation:
Agriculturist, R/o. Dhadi, Post Mamulwadi,
Tah. Nandura, Distt. Buldhana.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS 1. The Collector / Land Acquisition Officer,
(Medium Project) Buldhana, District
Buldhana.
2. Bhimrao S/o Sitaram Rokade,
Aged Major, Occu. Agriculturist,
3. Bebibai Bhimrao Pawar,
Aged Major, Occu. Household,
Deleted as per 4. Bhagrathabai Sitaram Kokade,
Courts Order Aged Major, Occu Household,
dated Nos.2 to 4 R/o. Taka, Tah Nandura, District -
09.06.2025
Buldhana.
5. Kunda Dnyaneshwar Kharate,
Aged Major, Occu. Household,
6. Jyoti Purushottam Jane,
Aged Major, Occu. Household,
7. Duryodhan Janrao Bathe,
Aged Major, Occu. Agriculturist,
2 WP-5181-2022-J.odt
8. Usha Manohar Gawande,
Aged Major, Occu. Household,
9. Manda Keshaorao Bathe,
Aged Major, Occu. Household,
10. Ramrao Janrao Bathe,
Aged Major, Occu. Household,
11. Sunanda Omprakash Bathe,
Aged Major, Occu. Household,
12. Anjana Keshao Bathe,
Aged Major, Occu. Household,
13. Sau. Sulochanabai Janardhan Gawande,
Aged Major, Occu. Household,
14. Vatsala Shyamrao Bathe,
Aged Major, Occu. Household,
15. Harsha Ashok Mankar,
Aged Major, Occu. Household,
16. Ashish Shyamrao Bathe,
Aged Major, Occu. Agriculturist,
17. Gajanan Shyamrao Bathe,
Aged Major, Occu. Agriculturist,
18. Varsha Jagdish Ghate,
Aged Major, Occu. Household,
19. Bhaskar Haribhau Dhoran
Aged Major, Occu. Agriculturist,
3 WP-5181-2022-J.odt
20. Dnyaneshwar Haribhau Dhoran,
Aged Major, Occu. Agriculturist,
Nos.5 to 20 all R/o.Dhadi, Post Mamulwadi,
Tah. Nandura, District - Buldhana.
Mr. Ram D. Karode, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. S.V. Narale, AGP for Respondent No.1
Mr. S.S. Shingane, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2, 5 to 20
Mr. S.D. Chande, Advocate with Mr. Sunil Kulkarni, Advocate for
Respondent No.3
CORAM: SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date of reserving the judgment : 12/08/2025
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 26/08/2025
JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the parties.
2. The notice under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Project
Affected, Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (In short, Act of 1999) was issued
in relation to declaration of areas affected or benefited zones for the
project namely "Jeegaon" project of Tahsil Nandura, District Buldhana
in the year 2002, calling upon the objections in relation to the subject
land. While raising objection belatedly in that regard the petitioner
presented objection in the year 2022. In the process, it was submitted
that although the sale deeds are executed way back in the year 1965,
vis-a-vis, 1967 by the grand-father of the petitioner, however, the
4 WP-5181-2022-J.odt
mutation entries stands in the name and the petitioner has availed
loan from a co-operative credit society as against the subject land. The
further objection of the petitioner is that the entries in 7/12 extracts
are also on the basis of the forged documents and the petitioner
intends to file civil suit questioning those sale deeds. While
purchasing the vehicle the subject properties are mortgaged with the
credit society, as such, objected by presenting an objection under
Section 77 of the Act of 2013.
3. While resisting the objection the respondent Nos.5 to 20,
submitted that same is unfounded since the sale deeds are executed in
the year 1965 and 1967 by the grand-father of the petitioner herein
and on the basis of the same, those respective purchasers are put in
possession, as such, the objection is raised with an ulterior motive.
Therefore, deserves no consideration. The competent authority has
considered the issue in its entirety and more particularly the
registered sale deeds which have presumptive values. It is further
submitted that the competent authority has not passed any
prohibitory order nor the sale deeds are canceled.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the competent authority, the
petitioner is before this Court with a plea that once an objection is
raised under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, it has to be referred to the
5 WP-5181-2022-J.odt
competent Court, without considering the nature of objection. In the
process, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5726/2024, Sarangdhar
S/o Gopal Gyar Vs. Collector, Buldhana and others , and the judgment
of the Hon'ble Andhra High Court recorded in AIRONLINE 2024 AP
614, S.T.V. Ramanujachari Vs. S.T.V. Sampath Kumar.
5. Per contra, Mr. S.S. Shingane, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 and 5 to 20 and learned Assistant Government
Pleader has supported the order and submitted that attempt of the
petitioner herein is to deprive the respondent to receive the amount of
compensation to which the respondents are lawfully and legitimately
entitled in the wake of their ownership over the subject properties.
Attempt is to generate the dispute which needs to be deterred and
deprecated. The dispute is not genuine since the registered sale deeds
are executed in the years 1965 and 1967 respectively in relation to
subject land and there is no challenge at any point of time. Even the
notification is of the year 2002 and for the first time, after the
unexplained and inordinate delay, objection is presented in the year
2022. Consequently, the competent authority has taken into account
the absence of genuineness in the objection and has rightly passed the
order, as such, requested to dismiss the petition. In the process, Mr.
Shingane, learned counsel has placed its reliance on the judgment of
6 WP-5181-2022-J.odt
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1966 AIR (SC) 237, G.H.
Grant Vs. State of Bihar; 2003(2) ALL MR 319, Sharda Devi Vs. State
of Bihar, 2005(4) Mh.L.J. Sayed Mohamed Shah Abdul Hamid Kadri
Vs. State of Maharashtra and another and order of the Division Bench
of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6218/2022, Shrikrushna S/o
Shivshankar Chambhare (Patil) and another Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & others and 2023 DGLS (Bom.) 188 Anjanabai W/o
Anna Thorat Vs. Dilip Baliram Khandare and others , to contend that
the competent authority has discretion to determine whether there
exists a dispute, which is required to be referred by applying mind to
the material placed before the concerned authority.
6. The authority can always decide whether there exists a dispute
which is required to be referred. Considering the attempt of the
petitioner herein to generate the dispute in relation to the sale deeds
which are of the years 1965 and 1967 respectively. As such, the rights
of the respondents are absolute. Even an objection to notice of the
year 2002 is raised with an unexplained delay of almost 20 years
deserves to be deprecated by endorsing the order rendered by the
competent authority. It is also submitted that the suit which was filed
subsequently by the petitioner herein is also dismissed for want of
prosecution.
7. Having heard the respective counsels, the issue which deserves
7 WP-5181-2022-J.odt
to be considered is whether the objection really exists and is required
to be referred to the Civil Court. Considering the fact that the sale
deeds executed by the grand-father of the petitioner are of the years
1965 and 1967 respectively and there is no challenge at any point of
time, the registered sale deeds have its own presumptive values and
are still intact. Those cannot be brushed aside merely by presenting
an objection after an inordinate delay of almost 20 years. The
Notification is of the year 2002, whereas, the objection is for the first
time presented in the year 2022. Undoubtedly, the competent
authority has discretion to refer the dispute provided it appears to be
genuine one. The said principle has been restated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court while considering the scope and ambit of Section 30 of
the provisions of the Act of 1894. Equally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case of Sharda Devi Vs. State of Bihar (supra) looking to the nature
of the dispute raised, the person who is raising the dispute, has held
that the delay can be taken into consideration by the Collector while
exercising the discretion before referring the issue. This Court in the
case of Sayed Mohamed Shah Abdul Hamid Kadri Vs. State of
Maharashtra (supra), has restated the discretion of the authority to
refer such dispute to the decision of the Court, if necessarily there is a
dispute arising, the Land Acquisition Officer can exercise the power
under Section 30 of the Act and the dispute should be in relation to
8 WP-5181-2022-J.odt
the apportionment of the compensation between the person
interested. The Land Acquisition Officer is expected to decide the
apportionment of the compensation amongst the person interested, to
look into the rights of interested person in relation to the land sought
to be acquired and based on such rights to decide about the
apportionment of compensation in order to ascertain rights of the
person interested. There has to be an application of mind by the Land
Acquisition Officer to the claim put-forth by the interested person.
Equally this Court in the case of Anjanabai W/o Anna Thorat Vs. Dilip
Baliram Khandare (supra) has aptly considered the scope of Section
77 of the Act, which is reproduced herein below.
"10. Section 77 of the Act of 2013, also uses the phrase "or
if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the
compensation or as to the apportionment of it". This
language therefore would indicate that the job of the Land
Acquisition Officer is not that of a postman, but entails an
application of mind to the material placed before him, to
determine whether there indeed exists a dispute which
requires to be referred. The Land Acquisition Officer in cases
where he finds that the objection raised is spurious,
moonshine, or absolutely without any basis, can always hold
so and refuse to refer the dispute in light of the specific
language under Section 77(2) which grants him the power to
refer, "If there be any dispute", which requires him to apply
his mind and at least prima facie hold a dispute exists or not.
11. It is thus apparent that in order to determine whether
there is a dispute or not, the mere filing of an objection or an
application, is not sufficient and such a claim, which intends
to raise a dispute, putforth by the interested person has to be
substantiated by them with necessary material in that regard
in support of such objection. It is not a mere objection for the
sake of objection that would empower the respondent No. 3 /
9 WP-5181-2022-J.odt
Land Acquisition Officer to blindly exercise powers under
Sections 76 and 77(2) of the Act as that would result in
spurious claims being entertained without any rhyme or
reason, thereby defeating the claims of genuine persons."
8. The reliance placed by counsel for petitioner in the case of
Sarangdhar S/o Gopal Gyar Vs. Collector, Buldhana (supra), wherein
the Division Bench of this Court has rather endorsed the
determination done by the Deputy Collector in relation to
genuineness of the will between the litigating side. Resultantly, held
that the dispute was rightly referred to the Civil Court for its
adjudication. As such endorsed the discretion exercised with the
authority vested by virtue of Section 77 of the Act to consider whether
the dispute is genuine and same requires to be referred to the Civil
Court for its adjudication. As such the said judgment is of no
assistance to the petitioner in any manner.
9. Thus the fallacy in the claim of the petitioner is evident
from the fact that the sale deed executed by the petitioner's grand-
father is of the years 1965 and 1967. The registered sale deeds have
presumptive value and those are intact even today. Nevertheless the
fact remains that the notice so issued by the authority calling the
objection of the year 2002, which is objected by the petitioner in
2022, which is certainly by way of an after thought. While presenting
an application, it was for the petitioner to put-forth its claim which
10 WP-5181-2022-J.odt
can be regarded as genuine one. Nevertheless the civil suit filed after
raising the objection, is not prosecuted by the petitioner resulting into
dismissal of suit in default. These events sufficiently establishes the
fact that the attempt of the petitioner is to create dispute, which never
existed, much less a genuine one. The competent authority has
discretion to determine whether there exists a dispute remitting
reference. These peculiar facts and circumstances have been properly
considered by the authority in its proper perspective while noting the
fallacy on the part of the petitioner to raise an objection and
eventually rejected by taking into account the absence of genuine
dispute. Resultantly, no error could be noted in the order of the
authority while rejecting the objection. As such no case is made out to
interfere in the order under challenge. Resultantly, the petition is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Rule is discharged.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
MP Deshpande
Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 26/08/2025 17:47:26
