1 MCA 671.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.671 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.846 OF 2026 (D) Sanjay Ramashankar Tiwari Vs. Deputy Collector (Land Acquistion) and ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. R. M. Bhangde, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. Mrunal Naik, AGP for respondent(s)/State. Mr. D. L. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for ori. respondent No.3/review applicant Ms. Ashwini Athale, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J . DATE : 30.09.2026. . Respondent No.3 has filed the present application seeking review of the judgment dated 04.08.2026 passed in Writ Petition No.846 of 2026. The said petition was filed in order to challenge order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the learned Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Authority, Nagpur on application at Exhibit 8 in Case No.3/NAG/NGP/2025 of Mouza – Raiwadi, Tahsil Saoner, District Nagpur. 2. Vide the said application at Exhibit 8, the petitioner had made a prayer to stay further proceedings in the said case till the final disposal of the suit for specific performance of contract filed by him, being Special Civil Suit No.78 of 2022, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Saoner. 2026:BHC-NAG:13127 2 MCA 671.26.odt 3. Learned advocate for respondent No.3, i.e. the review petitioner has objection with respect to certain observations made in paragraph 1 of the judgment in relation to the agreement dated 06.02.1991 and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 16.11.2015. According to the learned advocate for original respondent No.3, the agreement dated 06.02.1991 is not an agreement, but a receipt evidencing receipt of consideration for permitting the petitioner to extract clay from the lands in question and that the agreement is, in fact, a consent letter. 4. While referring to the document dated 06.02.1991, as agreement, this Court has not stated that the document is an agreement of sale. It is also recorded that the document is titled as, ‘Muawja Compensation Pavti Receipt (Sammati Patra)’. 5. As regards the observations regarding amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which is referred in the MOU, the contention of Mr. Dharmadhikari is that the said amount was received for some other property and has no relation with the suit property. The observations in paragraph 1 are merely for the purpose of deciding the application for stay filed by the petitioner. This Court has not decided the controversy on merits. The observations in paragraph 1 of the judgment are prima facie observations made in order to reproduce the facts relevant for deciding the said issue. It is obvious that once evidence is recorded in the civil suit, it will be open for the learned Civil Court to 3 MCA 671.26.odt record independent findings of fact with respect to the documents dated 06.02.1991 and 16.11.2015. The observations in paragraph 1 are, therefore, not in the nature of conclusive findings of fact which will bind the learned Civil Court. 6. The contentions with respect to nature of transaction, interpretation of documents and also that the amount stated to be paid under the two documents dated 06.02.1991 and 16.11.2015 is received in lieu of the suit properties or for some other purpose is also kept open for the learned Civil Court to decide. 7. Apart from this, Mr. Dharmadhikari contends that the provisions of Section 30 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act and Section 76 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 are completely different and that the authority constituted under the RFCTLARR Act is competent to decide the question of grant of compensation to the petitioner/plaintiff in lieu of specific performance of contract, since the prayer for specific performance is rendered infructuous in view of acquisition of the suit property. I am afraid that the provisions of Section 76 and Section 30 have already been considered by this Court in the light of earlier judgments. The contention raised by Mr. Dharmadhikari cannot be entertained while dealing with an application for review. The said contention that the authority constituted under the Act will also have the jurisdiction to decide the prayers made 4 MCA 671.26.odt in the civil suit is, therefore, rejected, having regard to the limited scope of review. 8. Application for review is rejected in the light of reasons recorded above. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) T αɳɱαყ...