Anandidas Raghuttam Dharmadhikari vs The State Of Maharashtra,Through ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8558 Bom

Bombay High Court

Anandidas Raghuttam Dharmadhikari vs The State Of Maharashtra,Through ... on 5 December, 2025

                              1                         fa 1938.24

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             FIRST APPEAL NO. 1938 OF 2024
                         WITH
           CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8415 OF 2024

       Shivkumar S/o Pandurang Dharmadhikari.. Appellant
             Versus
1.     The State of Maharashtra,
       and others                         .. Respondents

Shri Dr. R. R. Deshpande, Advocate h/f Ms. Priyanka R.
Deshpande, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri S. V. Hange, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri G. K. Sontakke, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6.

                         WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 1924 OF 2024
                         WITH
           CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8237 OF 2024

       Anandidas Raghuttam Dharmadhikari      .. Appellant
             Versus
1.     The State of Maharashtra,
       and others                             ..   Respondents

Shri Gajanan S. Shete, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri S. V. Hange, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
Shri Dr. R. R. Deshpande Shri Z. Z. Sayyed, Advocates for the
Respondent No. 2.
Shri G. K. Sontakke, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 9/1.

                        WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 2271 OF 2024
                        WITH
          CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10128 OF 2024

       Suresh Keshavji Parmar and others      .. Appellants
            Versus
                                2                            fa 1938.24

1.   The State of Maharashtra,
     and others                                ..    Respondents

Mrs. Manjiri A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellants.
Shri S. V. Hange, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
Shri G. K. Sontakke, Advocate for the Respondents.

                 CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

CLOSED FOR ORDER ON                :     13.11.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON                :     05.12.2025

ORDER :

-

. Heard on the maintainability of the first appeals.

2. The question posed before this Court is as follows :

Whether appeal U/Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as to the 'Act') is maintainable against the judgment passed U/Sec. 30 of the Act ?

3. Appellants are challenging judgment rendered in reference U/Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for the sake of brevity and convenience hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), which was arising out of award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer U/Sec. 11 of the Act on 16.08.1971. At the time of disbursement of the compensation, dispute arose regarding apportionment and entitlement to the compensation which was referred to the Civil Court. By the impugned judgment and award the entitlement is decided by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Ambajogai.

3 fa 1938.24

4. Learned counsels Mr. Dr. R. R. Deshpande and Mrs. M. A. Kulkarni argued that first appeals under the Act in the High Court are maintainable. Learned advocate Mr. G. K. Sontakke and the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. S. V. Hange opposed the submissions and contended that appeal would lie to the District Court U/Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for the sake of brevity and convenience hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.'). They relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the matter of Dr. Abhay Laddulal Shah Vs. Udaykumar Radhakisan Dubey reported in 2016 (4) ALL MR 732.

5. A similar question was dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the matter of Dr. Abhay Laddulal Shah Vs. Udaykumar Radhakisan Dubey (supra). The objection was taken for maintainability of the appeal preferred U/Sec. 54 of the Act against the adjudication U/Sec. 30 of the Act. The provisions of Sections 18, 26, 30 and 54 of the Act and their purport was considered and following observation was recorded :

"12. From the aforesaid discussion, it is crystal clear that there is a marked distinction between the nature of adjudication under Section 18 of the said Act and under Section 30 of the said Act. While in the former the amount of compensation payable for the acquisition is determined, in the latter the relief of apportionment by granting a declaration is made. As adjudication under Section 30 of the said Act is not an award in terms of Section 26 of the said Act in terms of Section 54 of the said Act, the same would be appellable under provisions of the Code as applicable to appeals from original decrees. Moreover, if it is held that adjudication under Section 30 of the said Act is also subject to appeal under Section 54 of the said Act then the 4 fa 1938.24

initial portion of Section 54 of the said Act would be rendered otiose."

Following conclusion is recorded :

"Hence, upholding the preliminary objection, it is held that adjudication under provisions of Section 30 of the said Act can only be challenged by preferring appeal under Section 96 of the Code and not under provisions of Section 54 of the said Act. Further, the forum of appeal under Section 96 of the Code would depend upon the pecuniary valuation of the amount in dispute."

6. Mr. Dr. Deshpande, learned counsel canvased that vital provisions of other Acts are not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. All facets of the matter have not been taken into account. He submited that purport of Court as defined U/Sec. 3(d) and Sec. 54 of the Act is overlooked. He pressed into service Sections 7, 8 and 16 of the Maharashtra Civil Courts Act, 1869 (for the sake of brevity and convenience hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1869') to support the submissions. Reliance is also placed on certain authorities. His endeavour is to show that there is no difference in award passed U/Sec. 18 and U/Sec. 30 of the Act.

7. I have considered the provisions of the Act as well as provisions of the Act of 1869. Any dispute as to the apportionment of the compensation or any part thereof or the entitlement thereof is referable to Court U/Sec. 30 of the Act. Similarly any person aggrieved by award passed U/Sec. 11 of the Act can approach Collector and the matter would be referred to 5 fa 1938.24

the Court for determination.

8. As per Sec. 3(d) of the Act, Court means a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction. As per Sec. 7 of the Act of 1869, District Court shall be the principal court of original civil jurisdiction in the district. When Civil Judge Senior Division is adjudicating the dispute U/Sec. 30 of the Act, it is acting as principal court of original jurisdiction and it is a District Court. Any appeal from its adjudication would lie to High Court. As the adjudication is under special statute, any appeal against it is susceptible to the provisions of the special statute. The value of the subject matter is not decisive factor for deciding appellate forum.

9. The L. A. Act is a special statute to regulate the acquisition and payment of just compensation to the owners of the land. Its Sec. 54 provides remedy of appeal only to High Court from any proceeding under this Act. The remedy of appeal is expressly provided so as to have prompt adjudication by High Court or Supreme Court. The remedy is to achieve very object under the Act. It is difficult to infer that remedy U/Sec. 96 of the C.P.C. to District Court is available. The remedy provided U/Sec. 54 of the Act is express and not required to be deciphered. Whereas the learned Single Judge read the remedy of appeal U/Sec. 96 of the Act by interpretative process.

10. There is no difference in the adjudication by the Court 6 fa 1938.24

under Section 18 and under Section 30 of the Act. The title to the compensation is determined in both the proceedings. My attention is adverted to Full Bench decision of Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Chander and Others vs. Mauji and other reported in AIR 1989 DELHI 97, which was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge in Dr. Abhay Laddulal Shah Vs. Udaykumar Radhakisan Dubey (supra).

11. A Full Bench of the Delhi High Court was dealing with the controversy as to whether the Civil Procedure Code and Limitation Act can be made applicable to the proceedings under Section 30 of the Act. An appeal under Section 54 of the Act was filed before the Division Bench from the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation by the Reference Court. The matter was referred to the Full Bench for deciding questions referred in para 4 of the judgment. For the purpose of the controversy at hand following question is relevant :

(d) "Is there a difference between the appeal arising out of the proceedings under S.18 and proceedings arising out of S.30 for the purposes of abatement of appeal?"

12. The statutory framework of the Act and the nature of the reference under Section 18 as well as Section 30 of the Act are considered by the Full Bench to answer the questions referred to it. It is observed in para No.13 that the consistent view taken by this Court is that the Code applies to proceedings initiated on a 7 fa 1938.24

reference under S.18. There is no justifiable reason to hold that proceedings initiated on reference under Section 30 of the Act are in any way different when the dispute as to the title of the compensation is to be determined in both proceedings.

13. It is apposite to reproduce the relevant discussion as follows :

"16. Whether the proceedings have been initiated on a reference under S.18 or under S.30, the dispute to be settled is as to the persons to whom the compensation is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. The conflicting claims to the compensation money is the dispute which has been referred either under S.18 or under S.30 of the Act. The lis between the parties is identical whether the proceedings are under S.18 or under S.30. An adjudication on the title to receive compensation on a reference under S.18 stands on the same footing as an adjudication on a reference under S.30 or for that matter on a deposit under S.31(2) of the Act. The scheme of the Act is that the Collector has to pay compensation to the rightful owners about whom he gives his award. The disputes could be settled either on a reference under S.18 or on a reference under S.30 to enable the Collector to disburse the compensation to the rightful owners. All questions relating to the dispute as to title to compensation, whether on a reference under S.18 or on a reference under S.30, traverse the same field. We can see no fundamental difference in the proceedings under S.18 and S.30/31 of the Act. The two operate in the same arena. The procedure before the Court on a reference under S.30 would also be governed by the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. S.30 does not contain any provision expressly or by necessary implication that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable. The Full Bench in Ram Piari's case (AIR 1978 Delhi 129) said that a reference under S.18 of the Act partakes the nature of a suit.

8 fa 1938.24

Similarly any dispute as to the apportionment of compensation or as to the persons to whom the same is payable on a reference, whether under S.18 or under S.30, is really in the nature of an inter-pleader suit initiated by the Collector either on a petition or suo motu. The persons interested are directed to establish their title to the acquired land. There is no reason for not making the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure Order 22 and for that matter the limitation contained therein, applicable to the proceedings under S.30 for the same reasons as are applicable to the proceedings under S.18 of the Act.

18. The right of appeal is a creature of statute. It cannot be assumed that there is a right of appeal in every case which comes before a Court. Such right has to be given by a statute or by some authority equivalent to a statute. The right of appeal being a creature of statute, it can be controlled or regulated by the provisions of the statute conferring it. The right of appeal in the Act is made subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to appeals from original decrees and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force. The limited right of appeal is from any award or from any part of the award. It also provides for a forum of appeal i.e. the appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under the Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award of the Court. It further provides an appeal from any decree from the High Court passed from such appeals to the Supreme Court. By virtue of the provisions of S.26(2) of the Act, every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of S.2 Cl.(2), and S.2, Cl.(9), respectively of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is also a consensus of judicial opinion of the High Courts that a decision under S.30 of the Act is a 'decree' and as such an aggrieved party has the right of appeal under Section 54. In "Rama Chandra v. Rama Chandra A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 80 it was held that from the moment when the sum has been deposited in Court under S.31(2), the functions of the award has ceased and all that is left is a dispute between the interested people as to the extent of their interest. If that is so, then any 9 fa 1938.24

adjudication would relate only to the title of the parties. It would partake the character of a decree of the Court. This view was in departure of the old view that orders under Ss.30/31(2) were awards and appealable under Section 54. Thereafter the consensus of judicial opinion is that an award in a reference under Ss.30/31(2) is a decree and is appealable.

19. Section 54 prior to its amendment by Act XIX of 1921 stated that "subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable to appeals from original decrees, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the award or any part of the award of the Court in any proceedings under this Act". Section 26(2) of the Act was also added by the same amendment and makes by a deeming fiction every such award as a decree. Section 54 gives a right of appeal in the case of award or any part of the award. The word 'only' in the amended S.54 does not restrict the right of the appeal but on the other hand, intended to make it specific about the forum of the appeal that in awards in land acquisition it would always be the High Court.

20. The object of the enactment by amendment in S.26 is to make the awards of the Court a judgment and decree and to the extent the scope of the right of appeal. The enhancement or quantification of the compensation under the award of the Court may be on a reference under S.18 restricted to objection to the amount of compensation. In that case there is no dispute that the appeal lies and is governed by the procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure. The award of the Court may be on a composite reference under S.18. In other words in addition to the amount of compensation, it would also have adjudicated upon the title of the persons whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the person interested. In that case the determination regarding the title to compensation would also be an award to which S.54 would apply. As a matter of policy it is provided in S.54 that all appeals against the award should lie to the High Court and, therefore, the appeal against the composite award would lie to the High Court. It cannot be construed that the portion of the award determining title to compensation is not an award 10 fa 1938.24

against which no appeal would lie under S.54 of the Act. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure contained in S.96 etc. would be attracted relating the practice and procedure and not the forum of appeal."

The above legal facet has not been taken into account by the learned Single Judge. The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure contained in Section 96 of the C.P.C. would govern practice and procedure and not the forum of the appeal. The forum is provided by Section 54 of the Act. The observations of the learned Single Judge recorded in paragraph No.16 are vulnerable and need reexamination by a larger strength.

14. Now a days the disputes for the apportionment or title to the compensation are on increasing trend. The daughters, married or unmarried are given birthright under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. If the land belonging to a joint family is acquired and daughters are eliminated from the benefits, then they tend to assert the rights by resorting to Section 30 of the Act. Hence question of maintainability of the appeal, assumes public importance.

15. It is desirable to have certainty and consistency for the forum of appeal. With due respect to the view of the learned Single Judge in case of Dr. Abhay Laddulal Shah Vs. Udaykumar Radhakisan Dubey (supra), I sincerely feel that the issue needs a reconsideration. It is possible to hold that remedy U/Sec. 54 of the Act is the only remedy. I, therefore, refer the following issue to Hon'ble the Chief Justice :

11 fa 1938.24

"What would be the forum for appeal against adjudication under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act" and "whether adjudication of claim under Section 30 of the Act is susceptible to appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure ?"

16. Interim relief, granted earlier, if any to continue.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]

bsb/Nov. 25