Bombay High Court
Deokabai Wd/O Shriram Fate And 4 Ors vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer ... on 8 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10466
1/8 Judg.fa.1357.2009.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1357 OF 2009
1. Deokabai wd/o Shriram Fate
Aged : Adult;
2. Anna s/o Shriram Fate
Aged : Adult;
3. Ravindra s/o Shriram Fate
Aged : Adult;
4. Rajesh s/o Shriram Fate
Aged : Adult;
5. Sanjay s/o Shriram Fate
Aged : Adult;
All residents of - Macharna, Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
(B & I. P.) No.1, Bhandara, Tahsil and
District Bhandara.
2. Chandrashekhar s/o Lemdeo Titirmare
Aged : Adult;
3. Avinash s/o Lemdeo Titirmare
Aged : Adult;
4. Chakradhar s/o Lemdeo Titirmare
Aged : Adult;
Nos. 2 to 4 residents of Sikarpur, Tahsil
Kuhi, District Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
2/8 Judg.fa.1357.2009.odt
Ms. R. D. Raskar, Advocate for Appellants.
Ms. H. S. Dhande, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. N. D. Khamborkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : SEPTEMBER 10, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 08, 2025.
JUDGMENT
. By this Appeal, the Appellants are challenging the Judgment and
order dated 1/10/2009 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Bhandara in
M.J.C (Land Acquisition) No. 2/2004 on the Reference issued by the Land
Acquisition Officer under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short, 'the Act of 1894') for apportionment of shares of the parties.
2. This Court, vide order dated 25/11/2009 Admitted the Appeal. At
the time of deciding Appeal on merits, the questions were raised about
tenability of the Appeal before this Court due to exceeding pecuniary
jurisdiction of the District Court, viz - "as to whether the present Appeal is to
be decided by this High Court or it should be remitted back to the District
Court?" and "secondly, if the reference proceedings are decided by the District
Judge, can the said proceedings be remanded back to the Principal District
Judge of District?"
3/8 Judg.fa.1357.2009.odt
To resolve this controversy, in my opinion, brief facts are required
to be considered in the matter.
3. In the present Appeal, it is admitted fact that the original land
owner was one Smt. Anandabai Pilaji Titirmare. The Land Acquisition
Authority acquired the land bearing Gat No. 211, admeasuring 9 H. 14 R.
situated at village Mendha, Tahsil Paoni, District Bhandara for the purposes of
Gosikhurd Project. The Award has been passed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer on 22/3/2002, thereby determining the compensation in the sum of
Rs.9,55,862/-. It is also not disputed in the matter that after the death of
owner namely Anandabai Pilaji Titirmare, the dispute was arose between the
Appellants and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 for disbursement of compensation
amount. In view of said dispute, the learned Land Acquisition Officer, by
exercising the powers available to him under Section 30 of the Act of 1894,
referred the matter to the Court to decide the issue of apportionment of the
Claimants in the matter. Hence, it is undisputed fact that by invoking the
powers under Section 30 by the Land Acquisition Officer, the matter was
referred to the Court for its decision, and therefore, the learned District Judge
decided the matter in the capacity of Reference Court.
4. During the pendency of present Appeal, this Court has occasion to
4/8 Judg.fa.1357.2009.odt
decide the issue as to whether the proceeding referred under Section 30 of the
Act of 1894 amounts to Award or Decree and whether same can be challenged
under Section 54 of the Act of 1894. This Court, after considering the entire
factual as well as legal position, held that if the order arises out of adjudication
under Section 30 of the Act of 1894, same cannot be termed as an Award and
it is to be held as a decree. Therefore, the person aggrieved by the said decree
has to prefer the Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This
Court in the case of Abhay Laddulal Shah V/s Udaykumar Radhakisan Dubey
and Others, 2015(3) Mh.L.J. 660 has specifically observed in paragraph No.12
as under :
"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 initial portion of section 54 of the said Act would be
rendered otiose.
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
5/8 Judg.fa.1357.2009.odt
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."
5. Perusal of the present Appeal shows that same was filed under
Section 54 of the Act of 1894. The decision of this Court clarifying the legal
position is of dated 18/4/2015 in the case of Abhay Shah (supra). Therefore,
according to me, the present Appeal, which was Admitted by this Court,
cannot be said to be not tenable at the time when it was filed.
6. In the present Appeal, now the position is clear that against the
Judgment of a Reference Court Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is to be filed, however, in the present Appeal the issue is raised that
if the Judgment is delivered by the Additional District Judge then in such
circumstances, whether the Appeal under Section 96 of the Code can be
preferred before the Principal District Judge or not. According to the learned
Counsel for Appellants, both the Courts are having same powers, and
therefore, same is required to be decided by this Court.
7. In the present Appeal, after hearing both the sides, I have gone
through the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Courts Act, 1869 (for short, 'the
Act of 1869'). Section 8 of the Act of 1869 clearly demonstrates that the
6/8 Judg.fa.1357.2009.odt
District Court shall be the court of appeal from all decrees and orders passed
by the subordinate courts, from which the appeal lies under any law for the
time being in force and the District Court presided over by the Principal
District Judge, and therefore, he has powers to decide the appeal from the
Judgment and orders passed by the subordinate courts to him.
8. Section 16 of the Act of 1869 is important to be considered for
deciding the present issue in the matter, and therefore, Section 16 of the Act of
1869 is reproduced as under :
"Section 16 - The District Judge may refer to any Additional District
Judge subordinate to him any original suits and proceedings of a
civil nature, applications or references under special Acts, and
miscellaneous applications. The Additional District Judge shall have
jurisdiction to try such suits and to dispose of such applications or
references. When the Additional District Judge's decrees and orders
in such cases are appealable, the appeal shall lie to the District Judge
or to the High Court according as the amount or value of the subject-
matter does not exceed or exceeds [one crore rupees]."
9. Perusal of this provision demonstrate the fact that the Principal
District Judge has powers to refer to the Additional District Judge any original
suits and proceedings of a civil nature and an application or references under
the Special Acts. Hence, it is clear that in the present case, admittedly, the
decision taken by the District Judge is in the nature of proceedings of
7/8 Judg.fa.1357.2009.odt
reference. Therefore, applying Section 16 of this Act, the Principal District
Judge can decide the Appeal which is decided by the court subordinate to him
i.e. Additional District Judges.
10. In the present Appeal, as stated above, the amount of
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was Rs. 9,55,862/-. In
view of amendment of Section 26 of the Act of 1869 vide Amendment dated
29/7/2015, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court is now exceeded
upto Rs.1.00 Crore. Hence, the present Appeal can be heard and decided by
the Principal District Judge and not by this Court.
11. In the present Appeal, another issue which needs to be clarified, is
that present Appeal is filed under section 54 of the Act of 1894 in the year
2009 and not under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court in
the Judgment of Abhay Shah (supra) in the year 2015 made the legal position
clear by holding that the Appeal under Section 96 of the Code is tenable and
not under Section 54 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, to avoid multiplicity of the
proceedings, I am of the opinion that present Appeal can be treated under
Section 96 of the Code and decided by the Principal District Judge. Resultantly,
I proceed to pass the following order.
8/8 Judg.fa.1357.2009.odt
ORDER
1. The present Appeal is transferred to the Principal District Judge,
Bhandara to decide the same on its own merits.
2. The Appellants are permitted to correct the cause-title of the Appeal,
and accordingly, by treating the same under Section 96 of the Code, the
same be decided by the Principal District Judge, Bhandara.
3. The Principal District Judge, Bhandara is requested to decide the Appeal
as expeditiously as possible, by considering the fact that the issue of
apportionment is pending since the year 2004.
4. The Registry of this Court is directed to immediately transfer the Record
and Proceeding of the First Appeal No. 1357/2009 to the Principal
District Judge, Bhandara.
12. First Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to
costs.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.]
vijaya
Signed by: Mrs. V.G. Yadav
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/10/2025 20:37:42
