1 WP 6-2019.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6 OF 2019 KAUSHALAYABAI BHAGWAN TANGADE AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS … Mr. Sudhir K. Chavan – Advocate for Petitioners Mr. A.D. Wange – AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, State Mr. S.E. Shekade – Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 6 … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 18.03.2026 O R D E R : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3, State authorities and learned Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2018 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition, Jayakwadi Project), Beed, whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking reference of the dispute to the Civil Court came to be rejected. 3. Learned Counsel – Mr. Sudhir Chavan for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lands bearing Survey Nos.240, 241, 4 and 169 situated at village Kalsambar, Tq. and Dist. Beed were acquired. At the 2026:BHC-AUG:12306 2 WP 6-2019.odt time of acquisition, the names of respondent Nos.4 to 6 were recorded in the revenue record, though the said lands were jointly owned by the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6. It is submitted that the petitioners did not receive any share in respect of compensation of Survey Nos.240 and 241, whereas acquisition in respect of Survey Nos.4 and 169 is concerned, there was in fact a partition between the parties, but the same was not reflected in the 7/12 extract. Consequently, the entire compensation came to be received by respondent Nos.4 to 6. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application before respondent No.3 seeking reference of the dispute to the Civil Court. Though respondent Nos.4 to 6 gave consent for reference in respect of Survey Nos.4 and 169, they opposed the reference regarding Survey Nos.240 and 241 and claimed entitlement to the entire compensation. Respondent No.3 rejected the application on the ground that the objection was raised after a period of 20 years and, therefore, was belated. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is exclusively within the domain of the Civil Court to decide inter se rights and title between the parties, and respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such issues. It is submitted that respondent No.3 has exceeded his jurisdiction in rejecting the application. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Counsel Mr. S.E. Shekade for respondent Nos.4 to 6 support the 3 WP 6-2019.odt impugned order. It is submitted that the compensation amount has already been withdrawn pursuant to the award. It is further contended that partition had already taken place and that respondent Nos.4 to 6 are entitled to Survey Nos.240 and 241. It is also submitted that the names of the petitioners were not recorded in the revenue record at the relevant time and, therefore, the compensation was rightly paid to respondent Nos.4 to 6. It is further submitted that appropriate proceedings have already been initiated before the competent authority. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that respondent No.3 has rejected the application by virtually adjudicating the rights of the parties. Respondent No.3 has recorded findings to the effect that the petitioners failed to produce documentary evidence of ownership and that the objection was raised after a delay of 20 years, and therefore, the same was time-barred. 7. However, upon perusal of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, there is no limitation prescribed for seeking a reference to the Civil Court for adjudication of disputes regarding apportionment or title. Neither the learned A.G.P. nor the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 have been able to point out any provision empowering respondent No.3 to reject such an application on the ground of delay. 4 WP 6-2019.odt 8. In fact, respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to decide disputed questions of title or inter se rights between the parties. Such disputes are required to be referred to the competent Civil Court. By recording findings on ownership and rejecting the application on the ground of delay, respondent No.3 has exceeded his jurisdiction and passed an order which is unsustainable in law. In view of the above, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. In view thereof, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 29.09.2018 passed by the Deputy Collector (Acquisition, Jayakwadi Project), Beed is quashed and set aside. 10. The matter be referred to the Principal Civil Court of original Jurisdiction for proper adjudication of the reference. 11. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE Pooja Kale/