1 cra 34.2924.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No.34/2024 Mrs. Rukhmini Dadarao Aswar and others /Vs/ Vitthal Namdeorao Aswar and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. R.R.Deo, Advocate for applicants. Mr. U.J. Deshpande, Advocate for non-applicant no.1. Ms. H.S.Dhande, AGP for non-applicant nos.2 and 3. Mr.M.G.Zade, Adv. h/f Mr.K.P.Mahalle, Advocate for non-applicant no.4. CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATED : 15/09/2026 1. Heard Mr.R.R.Deo, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Mr. U.J. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for non- applicant no.1, Ms. H.S.Dhande, learned AGP appearing for non- applicant nos.2 and 3 and Mr.M.G.Zade, learned Advocate holding for Mr.K.P.Mahalle, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.4 2. By this application, the applicants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "CPC") challenging the impugned order dated 27.10.2023 passed below Exhibit 28 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akot, in Regular Civil Suit No.47/2020, whereby an application filed by original defendant no.4 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC came to be rejected. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants canvassed that, the present non-applicant no.1 is the owner of agricultural land bearing Gat no.326, ad-measuring 0.25 HR, situated at mouza Amboda, Taluka-Akot, District-Akola, which came to be acquired by non-applicant no.2 - SDO for a drip irrigation project. Two tamarind trees were standing on the said field. Non-applicant no.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No.47/2020 and prayed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,58,736/- along 2 cra 34.2924.odt with interest against the present non-applicant nos.2 to 4, as per the Award passed on 09.03.2018 in Land Acquisition Proceeding bearing No.LAQ No.6/47/2014-15, which was initiated under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the Act of 2013"). 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants canvassed that, the present applicants were awarded compensation on the incorrect premise that, their land bearing Gat No.324 had fruit-bearing trees and that a well was situated thereon for irrigation purposes. Non-applicant no.1/plaintiff claimed that, the present applicants did not possess any trees or irrigation facility such as a well. However, an amount of compensation of Rs.1,58,736/- was incorrectly disbursed in favour of the predecessor of defendant no.4 instead of non- applicant no.1/original plaintiff. Therefore, if the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed and recovery of compensation of Rs.1,58,736/- is directed, in that event, the rights of the legal heirs of defendant no.4 would be prejudiced. 5. It is further canvassed that, Section 60, 63 and 64 of the Act of 2013 provides mechanism for resolving the dispute. Section 60 provides for the Powers of Authority as well as the procedure to be followed before the Authority for adjudication of disputes relating to the acquisition of the land. Section 63 provides for a bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court; whereas section 64 provides for making a reference to Authority if any person interested has not accepted the Award. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants 3 cra 34.2924.odt canvassed that, the Act of 2013 provides a specific mechanism for deciding the issue involved in the suit. Therefore, the suit filed by the present non-applicant/plaintiff is barred by law. However, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order and wrongly rejected the application filed by the present applicants under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and bad in law. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for non- applicant no.1 submits that, non-applicant no.1 has filed Regular Civil Suit No.47/2020 and has specifically prayed for a decree for compensation along with interest in pursuance of Land Acquisition Proceeding No.LAQ No.6/47/2014-15, decided on 09.03.2018 in respect of the acquisition of land bearing Gat no.326 and the well situated thereon. No claim has been set out as against the present applicants, who are the legal heirs of defendant no.4. Further, non-applicant no.1/plaintiff has specifically prayed for compensation along with interest on the basis of the well which was situated in his field, but the compensation was granted in favour of the predecessor of present applicants on the premise that, the said well was standing in their field. Therefore, the present non-applicant no.1 has not challenged the Award passed in LAQ No.6/47/2014-15 decided on 09.03.2018. Therefore, raising an objection regarding bar of the suit under the Act of 2013 is not maintainable. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order and rejected the application filed by the present applicants. Needless to say that, non-applicant no.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No.47/2020 and specifically prayed for a decree for compensation of Rs.1,58,736/- along with interest 4 cra 34.2924.odt @ 18% per annum, as per the Award dated 09.03.2018, in respect of acquisition of the land bearing Gat no.326 situated thereon a well for irrigation purpose. 8. The non-applicant no.1/plaintiff specifically pleaded that, the non-applicant-acquiring body paid compensation of Rs.1,58,736/- by directly transferring the amount into the account of the original defendant no.4 pursuant to the Award dated 09.03.2018. It is not the case of the present applicants/defendant no.4 that, the well was situated in their field bearing survey no.324. Therefore, non-applicant no.1 filed the suit and prayed for a decree of the compensation along with interest. The present applicants/defendant no.4 filed Exhibit-28, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, and prayed for rejection of the plaint mainly on the ground that, no cause of action had arisen in favour of the plaintiff to file the suit and that the suit was barred by law. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not provide a mechanism for resolving a dispute by the competent Authority between two land owners but, the provisions of the said Act provides the mechanism for adjudication of dispute in respect of compensation between the owner and the acquiring body. In the present case, the specific issue is, whether the well was situated on the acquired land of the plaintiff/non-applicant no.1 but, the compensation was paid to that effect in favour of defendant no.4. Hence, the plaintiff has prayed for recovery of the said compensation along with interest through the original defendant nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not barred by the provisions of Act of 2013. There is also a specific pleading 5 cra 34.2924.odt regarding arising of cause of action soon after service of notice under Section 80 of CPC. 9. On 27.10.2023, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order and rejected the application holding that, the plaintiff had disclosed a cause of action for filing the suit and that the suit was not barred by any law. Therefore, I do not find that, the impugned order is perverse, illegal or bad in law and there is no failure on the part of the learned Trial Court to exercise of jurisdiction vested in it. 10. Hence, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. No costs. (Y.G.KHOBRAGADE, J.) Mukund Ambulkar Signed by: Ambulkar (MLA) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 15/09/2026 17:29:19