[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ramubai Krushna Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Special ... on 29 January, 2026
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2026:BHC-AS:4573
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10896 OF 2025
Ramubai Krushna Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Maharashtra Through
SANTOSH Special Land Acquisition Officer, Uran,
SUBHASH
KULKARNI District Raigad
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
2. Kailas Ramesh Patil
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.01.29
21:31:57 +0530 3. Jayashree Mangesh Patil
4. Tulsabai Ramesh Patil
5. Hemlata Vinod Thakur
6. Raghunath Budhaji Patil
7. Anandi Sadanand Patil
8. Laxman Ambu Patil
9. Shanta Shantaram Patil
10. Meghashyam Shantaram Patil
11. Dinesh Shantaram Patil
12. Yogesh Shantaram Patil
13. Kashibai Mahadev Gharat
14. Lata Madhukar Patil
15. Damayanti Vilas Thakur
16. Manoj Bhalchandra Patil
17. Bharat Bhalchandra Patil
18. Chetna Vinod Wajekar ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10897 OF 2025
Ramubai Krushna Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Maharashtra Through
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Uran,
District Raigad
2. Kailas Ramesh Patil
1/23
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 22:18:18 :::
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
3. Jayashree Mangesh Patil
4. Tulsabai Ramesh Patil
5. Hemlata Vinod Thakur
6. Raghunath Budhaji Patil
7. Anandi Sadanand Patil
8. Laxman Ambu Patil
9. Shanta Shantaram Patil
10. Meghashyam Shantaram Patil
11. Dinesh Shantaram Patil
12. Yogesh Shantaram Patil
13. Kashibai Mahadev Gharat
14. Lata Madhukar Patil
15. Damayanti Vilas Thakur
16. Manoj Bhalchandra Patil
17. Bharat Bhalchandra Patil
...Respondents
18. Chetna Vinod Wajekar
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10898 OF 2025
Ramubai Krushna Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Maharashtra Through
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Uran,
District Raigad.
2. Kailas Ramesh Patil
3. Jayashree Mangesh Patil
4. Tulsabai Ramesh Patil
5. Hemlata Vinod Thakur ...Respondents
Mr. Saurabh Patil, a/w Kshema Mahuli, for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for the State - Respondent No.1 in all
WPs.
Mr. Saurabh Butala, for the Respondent Nos.2 to 18 in all WPs.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Reserved On: 3rd DECEMBER, 2025
Pronounced On: 29th JANUARY, 2026
2/23
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 22:18:18 :::
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India assail identical orders passed by the Executing Court in
the petitions filed to execute the awards passed in land
acquisition references.
3. The facts in WP/10896/2025 are noted as a representative
case.
4. The background facts leading to these petitions can be
stated as under:
4.1 Pandu alias Pandurang Manglya Patil, Ambu Manglya
Patil and Budhya Manglya Patil, were the owners of the land
bearing Survey No.56, Hissa No.8, admeasuring 8 R and Survey
No.116, Hissa No.16, admeasuring 21 R situated at Mauje
Bokadvira, Taluka Uran, District Raigad, ("the subject lands").
The petitioner is the daughter of Pandu @ Pandurang Mangalya
Patil. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the legal heirs of late Ramesh
Mangaly Patil, the brother of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.6
to 18 are the legal heirs of late Ambu Mangaly Patil and Budhya
Mangalya Patil.
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
4.2 The subject lands were acquired by respondent No.1 for
Navi-Mumbai Project vide Notification dated 24 th September,
1986 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
("the Act, 1894"). The Land Acquisition Collector passed an
award. The petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 18, who are the
successors-in-interest of the abovenamed holders of the subject
lands, made references under Section 28A(3) of the Act, 1894.
4.3 By a judgment and award dated 18th July, 2016, the
Reference Court partly allowed the reference LAR No.222/2014
and ordered respondent No.1 to pay compensation of
Rs.20,71,060/- alongwith interest.
4.4 The petitioner and the other co-claimants filed Special
Darkhast No.51/2016 to execute the award passed in LAR
No.222/2014. Respondent No.1 deposited the amount under the
award on 27th February, 2019. An application for withdrawal of
the said amount came to be allowed by the Executing Court by
an order dated 3rd April, 2019 subject to certain conditions.
4.5 Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed an application
(Exhibit-39) for himself and on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5,
6, 7 and 9/1 to 13/3 asserting that the petitioner - original
claimant No.5, had no right to receive the compensation as she
was not the daughter of Pandu @ Pandurang Patil. The
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
petitioner was not born to her mother out of the wedlock with
late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil.
4.6 The petitioner resisted the application.
4.7 By an order dated 10th October, 2019, the Executing Court
rejected the prayer of the co-claimants - respondent Nos.3 to 5,
6, 7 and 9/1 to 13/3 to release the amount of compensation in
favour of the claimants excluding the petitioner. However, the
learned Civil Judge observed that since the extent of the share
of the claimants in the compensation awarded under the award
in LAR/222/2014 was not determined, the applicants in the
said application (Exhibit-39) or the petitioner - original claimant
No.5, were required to institute a suit before the Civil Court for
the determination of their right in the compensation. Till then,
the amount of compensation deposited by respondent No.1
cannot be released in favour of any of the claimants - award
holders.
4.8 The respondents challenged the said order in writ petition
before this Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition,
the petitioner preferred an application for withdrawal of the
amount falling to her share (Exhibit-55). The petitioner claimed
that, she had ½ share in the compensation, payable for the
acquisition of the land of Pandu @ Pandurang Patil, being the
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
daughter of late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil, and the balance ½
share was that of late Ramesh, the predecessor-in-title of
respondent Nos.2 to 5. The petitioner, thus, prayed for release
of the said amount subject to an undertaking and bank
guarantee to the extent of her 50% share.
4.9 By an order dated 7th May, 2025, the learned Civil Judge
rejected the application opining that the Executing Court had
already passed an order on the application (Exhibit-39) and
thereby directed the parties to have their share determined by
the Civil Court. The said order was not reversed or set aside
and, thus, the Executing Court can not review its own order.
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition
assailing the aforesaid order.
6. The facts in WP/10897/2025 and WP/10898/2025 are
almost identical. LAR/209/2014, the subject of WP/10897/
2025, was in respect of the agricultural land bearing Survey
No.89/3 and 89/7 and by the judgment and award dated 13 th
July, 2016 compensation of Rs.45,59,020/- alongwith interest
was awarded. In WP/10898/2025, the award in LAR/208/2014
was passed on 13th July, 2016 and thereby compensation of
Rs.35,85,795/-, alongwith interest, was awarded for the
acquisition of the land, bearing Survey No.112, Hissa No.3/9
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
and Hissa No.3/22, belonging to Pandu @ Pandurang Patil.
The said LAR was filed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.2
to 5, the successors-in-interest of Ramesh Pandu Patil.
7. Identical orders on the applications for releasing the
compensation amount to the claimants, excluding the petitioner,
and on the applications preferred by the petitioner to release
50% of the amount, were passed by the learned Civil Judge.
The petitioner has, thus, invoked the writ jurisdiction.
8. I have heard Mr. Saurabh Patil, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner, Mr. Saurabh Butala, the learned Counsel for
respondent Nos.2 to 18 and, Mr. Sawant, the learned AGP for
the State - respondent No.1, at some length. With the assistance
of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the
material on record.
9. Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that the impugned orders passed by the Executing Court are
legally unsustainable and have caused grave prejudice to the
petitioner. It was submitted that not only the land acquisition
references were filed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5
with a clear and categorical assertion that the petitioner was the
daughter of late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil but even the
execution petitions were filed with the assertion that the
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
petitioner and late Ramesh, the predecessor-in-title of
respondent Nos.2 to 5, were the successors-in-interest of late
Pandu @ Pandurang Patil. Belatedly and with a mala fide
design, the respondents objected to the release of the amount of
compensation in favour of the petitioner, falsely claiming that
the petitioner was not the daughter of late Pandu @ Pandurang
Patil and she was born to her mother by latter's quondam
husband.
10. Mr. Patil further submitted that the respondent Nos.2 to 5
and the petitioner had jointly filed applications for their
recognition as their legal heirs not only of late Pandu @
Pandurang Mangalya Patil but even Vithabai, the wife of late
Pandu @ Pandurang Patil and the mother of the petitioner and
late Ramesh Patil. Those applications were allowed by orders
dated 29th January, 2008 declaring the petitioner and
respondent Nos.2 to 5 to be the legal heirs of late Pandu @
Pandurang Patil and Smt. Vithabai. Thus, the Executing Court
committed a manifest error in holding that the question as to
who were entitled to the compensation deposited by respondent
No.1 was required to be determined by the Civil Court.
11. Moreover, till the filing of these petitions, respondent Nos.2
to 5 had not instituted the suit, though the Executing Court has
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
passed the order recording such a view in the year 2019. The
objections mala fide raised on behalf of the respondents;
respondent Nos.2 to 5, in particular, caused grave prejudice to
the petitioner, who is more than 80 years of age, urged Mr. Patil.
12. In opposition to this, Mr. Butala, the learned Counsel for
the respondents, submitted that the Executing Court has
correctly ruled that the question as to whether the petitioner is
entitled to a share in the compensation was required to be
determined by the Civil Court. A specific objection to the
petitioner's right to inherit the estate left behind by late Pandu
@ Pandurang Patil has been raised. It was the positive case of
respondent Nos.2 to 5 that the petitioner was not the daughter
of late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil. She was born to Vithabai by
her quondam husband. Therefore, no fault can be found with
the impugned order. To buttress this submission, Mr. Butala
placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
P. K. Sreekantan and others vs. P. Sreekumaran Nair and
others1.
13. Mr. Butala further submitted that Jayashree Patil (R3) and
Hemlata Thakur (R5), the daughters of Ramesh Patil, have
instituted a suit bearing RCS/109/2025 asserting that the
1 (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 574.
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
petitioner - defendant No.3 therein, is not entitled to a share in
the amount of compensation and the other benefits in lieu of
the acquired land. Thus, till the Civil Court determines the
contentious issues with regard to the entitlement of the parties
to succeed to the estate of late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil, the
amount of compensation deposited by respondent No.1 cannot
be released, submitted Mr. Butala.
14. To start with, it is necessary to note that there is not much
controversy over the acquisition of the subject lands and the
award of enhanced compensation by the Reference Court in
LAR/222/2014, LAR/208/2014 and LAR/209/2014.
Incontrovertibly, the LAR Nos.222/2014 and 209/2014 were
filed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 18 and
LAR/208/2014 was filed by petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to
5, claiming to be the legal representatives of the original holders
of the land. Qua the acquired property which originally
belonged to late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil, respondent Nos.2 to
5 and the petitioner claimed that they were the successors-in-
interest of late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil. Indisputably, the
awards were passed in favour of the petitioner and respondent
Nos.2 to 5 qua the share of late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil.
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
15. It is also imperative to note that the petitioner and
respondent Nos.2 to 18 had jointly filed applications for
execution of the award passed in LAR/222/2014 and
LAR/209/2024 and the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5
filed execution petition for execution of award in LAR/208/2014.
The controversy seems to have arisen when respondent No.2
filed an application seeking release of the amount of
compensation, excluding the petitioner. At that stage, a
contention was raised by the respondents; respondent Nos.2 to
5, in particular, that the petitioner was not the daughter of
Pandu @ Pandurang Patil and she was born to Vithabai out of
her wedlock with her quondam husband and was treated like a
daughter by Pandu @ Pandurang Patil.
16. On first principles, the pleadings and representations by
respondent Nos.2 to 5 upto that stage, ran counter to the said
case sought to be urged before the Executing Court. Secondly,
it is pertinent to note, the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5
had obtained heirship certificate by filing joint applications not
only in respect of Pandu @ Pandurang Patil but also in respect
of Vithabai, the wife of Pandu @ Pandurang Patil. Thirdly, at no
point of time, a dispute about the apportionment of the amount
of compensation was raised by respondent Nos.2 to 5, in
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
particular, either under Section 28A(3) read with Section 18 or
under Section 30 of the Act, 1894.
17. The last factor assumes critical legal significance. A
Reference Court under the Act, 1894 is a Court of limited
jurisdiction. The Reference Court has to discharge the functions
in terms of the reference made by the the Collector either under
Section 18 or 30 of the Act, 1894. It is well recognized the
Reference Court gets jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to
it under Section 18 or 30 of the Act, 1894 by the Land
Acquisition Collector. The Reference Court cannot widen the
scope of its jurisdiction or decide the matters which are not
referred to it.
18. In the case of (Rai) Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur vs.
Secy. Of State2, the Privy Council enunciated that the
jurisdiction of the Court under the Act, 1894 was a special one
and strictly limited by the terms of those sections. It only arises
when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector's
award, and it is confined to a consideration of the objection.
Once therefore it is ascertained that the only objection taken is
to the amount of compensation, that alone is the "matter"
2 AIR 1930 Privy Council 64.
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
referred, and the Court has no power to determine or consider
anything beyond it.
19. In the case of Kothamasu Kanakarathamma and others
vs. State of A.P.3, the Supreme Court enunciated that the
jurisdiction of the Reference Court arises solely only on the
basis of the reference made to it. Where the Land Acquisition
Officer has made a reference under Section 30 of the Act, 1894,
the reference was only in regard to the apportionment of the
compensation among the claimants. Such a reference would
certainly not invest the Court with jurisdiction to consider the
question of quantum of compensation which is not directly
connected with it.
20. In the case of Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman
Sahakari Samiti Ltd. vs. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran and
another4. the Supreme Court after reference to the previous
pronouncement in the case of Ajjam Linganna and others vs.
Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad
and others5, enunciated that the Reference Court has no power
to convert reference under Section 30 into one under Section 18
3 AIR 1965 Supreme Court 304.
4 (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 561.
5 (2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 426.
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
of the Act at the instance of the persons who did not apply for
reference earlier.
21. A profitable reference can also be made to a three-Judge
Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan vs.
State of Maharashtra6, wherein expounding the distinction
between Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, 1894, the Supreme
Court enunciated that at a cursory glance of the provisions of
Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, may suggest that there is some
overlapping between the provisions inasmuch as both
contemplate reference of the issue of apportionment of
compensation to the Court. But, a closer scrutiny would
indicate that the two Sections of the Act operate in entirely
different circumstances. While Section 18 applies to situations
where the apportionment made in the Award is objected to by a
beneficiary thereunder, Section 30 applies when no
apportionment whatsoever is made by the Collector on account
of conflicting claims. In such a situation one of the options open
to the Collector is to make a reference of the question of
apportionment to the Court under Section 30 of the Act. The
other is to relegate the parties to the remedy of a suit.
6 AIR 2014 Supreme Court 846.
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
22. In the case of P. K. Shreekantan (supra), on which reliance
was placed by Mr. Butala, after referring to the aforesaid
pronouncements, on the question whether Reference Court
can deal with the question covered by Section 30 of the Act
in a reference under Section 18 of the Act and vice-a-versa, the
Supreme Court enunciated that it was impermissible to deal
with the matter covered under Section 30 of the Act,
while dealing with a reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act.
However, it is to be noted that there is no time-limit for seeking
reference under Section 30 of the Act, though it should always
be done within a reasonable time. The reasonableness of time
flows from the need for a finality to judicial proceedings.
23. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, the legality of
withholding of the amount of compensation deposited by
respondent No.1, in the wake of the dispute raised by
respondent Nos.2 to 5, in particular, deserves to be appreciated.
It is imperative to note the dispute as to apportionment was not
raised at any point of time till the awards came to be passed in
LAR/408/2014, LAR/209/2014 and LAR/222/2014. On the
contrary, not only those references were made by the petitioner
and respondent Nos.2 to 5 jointly, in the capacity of the
successors-in-interest of late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil, but
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
even joint applications for execution of the awards were filed. It
is only after the Executing Court passed the order of release of
the amount deposited by respondent No.1, a dispute was sought
to be raised by the respondents, especially respondent Nos.2 to
5, as to the entitlement of the petitioner on the premise that she
was not the daughter of late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil.
24. Undoubtedly, a dispute as to apportionment could be
raised. There is no time-limit prescribed for making a reference
as to the appropriation of the amount of compensation.
However, the question of reasonability of time within which such
a dispute is to be raised, the nature and stage of the
proceedings in which such dispute is sought to be raised and
the conduct of the parties, assume material significance.
25. In the case at hand, this Court finds that an unequivocal,
unqualified and positive representation that the petitioner is the
daughter of late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil and sister of Ramesh
Patil, the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos.2 to 5,
manifested not only throughout the proceedings under the Act,
1894 but even in filing applications for grant of heirship
certificate. Categorical statements acknowledging the petitioner
to be the daughter of late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil have been
made in the application for recognition as the legal heirs of late
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
Pandu @ Pandurang Patil. What further exacerbates the
situation is, in the application for the grant of heirship
certificate in respect of Vithabai, the wife of Pandu @ Pandurang
Patil. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 claimed to be the legal heirs of
Vithabai as well on the premise that Ramesh was the son of late
Pandu @ Pandurang Patil and Vithabai.
26. The aforesaid conduct of respondent Nos.2 to 5 manifested
in the pleadings in judicial proceedings cannot be said to be
inconsequential. It is trite, admissions in pleadings constitute
judicial admissions and stand on a higher pedestal than
evidentiary admissions and signify waiver of proof. Therefore,
the relegation of the parties to the Civil Court for determination
of their entitlement on the basis of a contention which ex facie
runs counter to the consistent stand of respondent Nos.2 to 5,
could not have been as a matter of course. The learned Civil
Judge ought to have kept in view clear, explicit and unequivocal
representations, the conduct of the parties, the stage of the
proceedings at which the dispute was sought to be raised and
the masterly inaction on the part of respondent Nos.2 to 5 till
the stage of distribution of the compensation amount, while
ordering that the amount of compensation would be released
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
only after respondent Nos.2 to 5 or the petitioner obtained a
declaration from the Civil Court.
27. The conduct of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in maintaining a
stoic silence for over five years, even after the order dated 3 rd
April, 2019 was passed by the Executing Court, also bears upon
the bona fide of their claim. No proceeding was instituted by
respondent Nos.2 to 5 to seek a declaration till these petitions
came to be filed before this Court.
28. As noted above Mr. Butala tendered a copy of the plaint in
RCS/109/2025 for the perusal of the Court. It seems that the
said plaint was filed in the month of September, 2025. A bare
perusal of the plaint in the said suit betrays the casual and
halfhearted manner in which the said suit has been instituted
by Hemlata Thakur (R5) and Jayashree Patil (R3). Even there is
no prayer in the said suit that the petitioner - defendant No.3
therein, is not the daughter of late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil
and is, therefore, not entitled to a share in the compensation
and other benefits in lieu of the acquisition of the subject land.
An innocuous declaration is sought that the plaintiffs -
respondent Nos.3 and 5 herein, are entitled to such
compensation and benefits and the consequential injunctive
relief.
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
29. In the said plaint, there is also no reference to the fact
that the executing Court, by an order dated 3 April 2019,
directed the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to have declaration from the
Civil Court as to their right to the compensation. In contrast,
the cause of action is stated to have arisen on 2 June 2025
when the Petitioner - Defendant No.3 demanded 50% share in
the compensation. Prima facie, a clever attempt has been made
to obviate the bar of limitation for a suit for declaration. The
cause of action can be said to have arisen to the Respondents
latest on 3 April 2019 when the right to sue first accrued to the
Respondent Nos.2 to 5. Prima facie, Respondent Nos.2 to 5 will
have to surmount the impediment of bar of limitation.
30. Should the Petitioner, or for that matter, the co-claimants,
be made to wait to reap the fruits of the awards till such suit is
finally adjudicated by the Civil Court, is the question that pricks
conscience of the Court. The Petitioner and the co-claimants
who have legitimate right to receive the compensation which has
been ordered to be released, cannot be made to endure
vicissitudes of litigation, which ex facie suffers from the glaring
infirmities adverted to above.
31. In a situation of the present nature, the fact that there is
no apportionment either under Section 18 or Section 30 of the
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
Act, 1894 need not preclude the writ court from exercising the
plenary jurisdiction to remedy the injustice, unshackled by the
procedural technicalities. Writ Court can exercise its jurisdiction
"to reach injustice wherever it is found". (U.P. state Sugar
Corporation Ltd. vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon7).
32. In the case of Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of
India and Ors.8, the Supreme Court emphasised the role of the
High Court under the Constitution. The observations in
paragraph No.13 are instructive, and, hence, extracted below :
"13. The role of the High Court under the Constitution is
crucial to ensuring the rule of law throughout its territorial
jurisdiction. In order to achieve these transcendental goals,
the powers of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction are
necessarily broad. They are conferred in aid of justice. This
Court has repeatedly held that no limitation can be placed on
the powers of the High Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction. In A V Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs,
Bombay v Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani9 a Constitution
Bench of this Court held that the nature of power exercised by
the High Court under its writ jurisdiction is inherently
dependent on the threat to the rule of law arising in the case
before it:
"10. ...... We need only add that the broad lines of the
general principles on which the court should act having been
clearly laid down, their application to the facts of each
particular case must necessarily be dependent on a variety of
individual facts which must govern the proper exercise of the
7 (2008) 2 SCC 41
8 (2020) 13 scc 285
9 (1962) 1 SCR 753
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
discretion of the Court, and that in a matter which is thus
pre-eminently one of discretion, it is not possible or even if it
were, it would not be desirable to lay down inflexible Rules
which should be applied with rigidity in every case which
comes up before the court."
The powers of the High Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction cannot be circumscribed by strict legal principles
so as to hobble the High Court in fulfilling its mandate to
uphold the rule of law." (emphasis supplied)
33. The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that the
objection raised by the rest of the co-claimants - award holders,
particularly respondent Nos.2 to 5, to the entitlement of the
petitioner to share the compensation deposited by respondent
No.1 ex facie lacks credence and on the basis of such objection,
the Executing Court could not have deferred the release of the
compensation amount by relegating the parties to the Civil
Court. To put it in other words, the delay and inaction on the
part of respondent Nos.2 to 5 was at their own peril. Having
made positive statements in the judicial proceedings that the
petitioner was the daughter of late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil, it
was not open for respondent Nos.2 to 5 to question the
entitlement of the petitioner to share the compensation in lieu of
the acquisition of the subject land. In such circumstances as
the justice of the claim clearly lies in favour of the petitioner, the
Executing Court ought to have released the amount
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
proportionate to half share of the petitioner out of the
compensation payable for the acquisition of the land of late
Pandu @ Pandurang Patil, by putting the petitioner to terms so
as to ensure that, in the event, the petitioners claim is found to
be unsustainable, the Court could balance the equities.
34. For the forgoing reasons, the petitions deserve to be
allowed.
35. Hence the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The petitions stand allowed.
(ii) The impugned orders stand quashed and set aside.
(iii) In each of the execution petitions, the Executing Court
shall release 50% of the amount of compensation falling
to the share of late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil, in terms of
the order dated 3rd April, 2019 passed on the application
(Exhibit-32) in favour of the petitioner, with the
modification that 50% of the said amount be released on
Indemnity Bond and affidavit and the balance 50% be
released on furnishing a Bank guarantee of a
Nationalized Bank.
-WP10896-2025+.DOC
(iv) The petitioner shall furnish an Indemnity Bond, to
indemnify the Court against the claim of the respondents
in respect of the compensation paid to the petitioner, in
the event, it is declared that the petitioner is not entitled
to a share in the compensation in respect of the
acquisition of the land belonging to late Pandu @
Pandurang Patil, and an undertaking that the petitioner
would bring back the said amount alongwith such
interest as may be ordered to be paid by any Court, in
each of the execution petitions.
(v) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the suit
instituted by Hemlata Thakur (R5) and Jayashree Patil
(R3) shall be decided on its own merits and in
accordance with law, without being influenced by any of
the observations in this judgment, which are confined to
test the legality and correctness of the impugned orders.
(vi) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(vii) The petitions stand disposed.
No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
