AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The present Petition challenges the orders dated 13.05.2025 passed by Respondent No.2 in L.A.C. No.01/2020-21, Mouje Hingana Dadgaon (Ghare), Tahsil Nandura, District Buldhana, whereby the objection/application preferred by the Petitioner seeking reference of the dispute under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) came to be rejected. The Petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the said order and a direction to Respondent No.2 to make a reference under Section 64 of the said Act.
The land situated at village Hingana Dadgaon (Old Gaothan), Tahsil Nandura, District Buldhana, was acquired for the Jigaon/Medium Project. A final Award under Section 23 of the said Act came to be passed on 26.02.2024, whereby compensation was determined in respect of House Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50/1, 50/2, 50/3, 50/4 and 50/5. The compensation awarded in respect of the respective properties was Rs.36,075/- for House No.46; Rs.33,19,211/- for House No.47; Rs.41,48,039/- for House No.48; Rs.12,04,810/- for House No.49; Rs.25,65,915/- for House No.50/1; Rs.45,28,808/- for House No.50/2; Rs.42,37,540/- for House No.50/3; Rs.9,01,950/- for House No.50/4; and Rs.6,93,200/- for House No.50/5. The compensation was shown in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 to 10. The Petitioner claims that the said properties originally belonged to his forefathers and that he has an interest therein.
The Petitioner claims that the acquired house properties originally belonged to his ancestors and that, through the deceased person from whom he claims succession, he is entitled to the compensation arising from acquisition of the said properties. The Petitioner relies upon the Gram Panchayat assessment record/ Gaon Namuna-8, particularly in relation to House No.46, and contends that the names of Respondent Nos.4 to 10 were subsequently entered as occupants, though according to him they had no lawful title to the properties. The Petitioner therefore objected to disbursement of the compensation and sought adjudication of the dispute regarding the person entitled to receive the compensation.
The Petitioner had taken steps to establish his claim of succession by filing proceedings before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandura, seeking a legal heirship certificate. The said application came to be rejected by judgment dated 06.03.2024, against which the Petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No.04/2024 before the District Judge, Malkapur, which is stated to be pending. The Petitioner also sought the old assessment records concerning the acquired properties. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an objection dated 17.05.2024 before Respondent No.2, requesting that the dispute regarding the person entitled to receive the compensation be referred under Section 64 of the said Act to the Authority constituted under Section 51.
The Petitioner also instituted proceedings before the Civil Court seeking declaration of his rights in respect of the acquired properties and protection against disbursement of compensation. The said proceedings came to be rejected by order dated 28.02.2025, inter alia, on the ground of the bar under Section 63 of the said Act. The Petitioner relies upon the said order to contend that the dispute regarding entitlement to compensation is required to be dealt with under the mechanism provided under Section 64 of the said Act.
In respect of House No.46, the Petitioner separately raised an objection claiming entitlement to the compensation on the basis of his alleged succession. Respondent No.2 considered the objection and passed an order dated 24.04.2025. Respondent No.2 noted that House No.46 admeasuring 9.24 sq. meters had been acquired and that compensation of Rs.36,075/- was payable in respect thereof. Since there was a dispute regarding ownership and the question of determining the lawful heir/entitled person was beyond the jurisdiction of Respondent No.2, the objection was referred to the Authority under the provisions of the said Act for determination of the person entitled to the compensation.
Thereafter, Respondent No.2 considered the objections concerning House Nos.47 to 50/5 and passed the impugned order dated 13.05.2025. Respondent No.2 rejected the objections raised by the Petitioner and held that, according to the Gram Panchayat Form No.8 and the material available on record, the respective properties stood in the names/possession of Respondent Nos.4 to
Respondent No.2 further observed that the Petitioner had not produced sufficient documentary material establishing ownership of the said properties in favour of the person through whom he claimed succession. Respondent No.2 accordingly directed payment of Rs.33,19,211/- in respect of House No.47; Rs.41,48,039/- in respect of House No.48; Rs.12,04,810/- in respect of House No.49; Rs.25,65,915/- in respect of House No.50/1; Rs.45,28,808/- in respect of House No.50/2; Rs.42,37,540/- in respect of House No.50/3; Rs.9,01,950/- in respect of House No.50/4; and Rs.6,93,200/- in respect of House No.50/5, to the respective Respondent Nos.4 to 10, subject to obtaining bonds and, where applicable, subject to the order of the Court.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 is contrary to the mandate of Section 64 of the said Act. It is submitted that the Petitioner has raised a specific dispute regarding the person to whom the amount of compensation is payable and the apportionment of compensation amongst persons interested. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 ought not to have finally adjudicated upon the Petitioner’s entitlement but ought to have referred the dispute to the Authority constituted under Section 51. It is further submitted that Respondent No.2 had already adopted such a course in respect of House No.46 by order dated 24.04.2025, whereby the dispute concerning compensation of Rs.36,075/- was referred to the Authority, and therefore, taking a contrary view in respect of House Nos.47 to 50/5 is arbitrary and inconsistent.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.4 to 10 submits that the present Petition is frivolous and that the Petitioner has failed to establish any legally enforceable right or interest in the acquired properties. It is submitted that the Petitioner’s application for legal heirship had been rejected by the competent Civil Court and that the appeal preferred thereagainst is pending. It is further submitted that Respondent Nos.4 to 10 and their predecessors have been in possession of the respective properties for several decades and their names are reflected in the Gram Panchayat records. According to the Respondents, the Petitioner raised the objection after the acquisition Award and failed to produce sufficient documentary material establishing his ownership or entitlement to the compensation.
Learned Counsel further submits that Respondent No.2 had duly considered the nature of the dispute and had rightly found that the Petitioner had failed to establish that he was a “person interested” in respect of House Nos.47 to 50/5. It is contended that Section 64 does not require every objection to be mechanically referred to the Authority and that Respondent No.2 was justified in examining the material available on record and rejecting the Petitioner’s objection. The Respondents therefore submit that the order dated 13.05.2025, directing payment of the aforesaid compensation amounts against bonds, does not warrant interference.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record, including the Award dated 26.02.2024, the objections raised by the Petitioner, the order dated 24.04.2025 concerning House No.46, the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 concerning House Nos.47 to 50/5, the proceedings relating to legal heirship, the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Civil Court, and the reply filed by Respondent Nos.4 to 10.
I have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. As can be seen from the family tree at page No. 5 of the Petition, the Petitioner Eknath, claims to be son of Jagannath, grandson of Sampat, and great-grandson of Vithoba Khond. Furthermore, as can be seen from the Record of Rights, the name of grandson of other son Vithoba, who was the common ancestor, appears in the revenue assessment with respect to house No. 46 only. It is also an admitted fact on record that as far as property at serial No. 46 is concerned, the Respondent No. 2 has referred the matter to the competent authority vide order dated 24.04.2025, as per the provisions of Section 76 of the said Act. However, such a request is rejected with respect to other properties, i.e., property bearing serial Nos. 47, 48, 49, 50, 50/1, 50/2, 50/3, 50/4, 50/5. The rejection order is passed on 13.05.2025, which is impugned in the present Petition.
It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that, having referred the matter with respect to property at serial No. 46, Respondent No. 2 cannot apply a different standard to the remaining properties as mentioned supra. However, it is pertinent to note that there is nothing placed on record which show the ownership or possession of Jagdev Udaybhan Khond with respect to these properties. The revenue record shows property at serial No. 46 only. On the other hand, Respondents 4 to 10 have filed the revenue records with respect to the other properties as mentioned supra. It therefore follows that there was no material on record to show that the person, namely Jagdev, through whom present Petitioner is claiming right as a legal representative, had these properties standing in his name. Thus, in my considered opinion, Respondent No. 2 has correctly exercised its discretion since no material was available on record connecting the alleged predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner to the properties in question.
Furthermore, and in addition to this, and as can be seen from the record, the application filed by the Petitioner for declaring him as a legal heir has admittedly been rejected. Even though an appeal pends against the said order, that cannot be the only sole reason in view of a conclusive finding by the competent Civil Court that the Petitioner does not come under the category of Class II heir as provided under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Furthermore, suit filed by the Petitioner claiming declaration and ownership has also been rejected by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malkapur on 28.02.2025 by resorting to provisions under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, taking overall view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that Respondent No. 2 did not exercise his discretion perversely. The discretion seems to be exercised on the basis of material on record, more particularly, absence of any documents to show ownership/possession of the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner. The Petition is, therefore, without any merit and is liable to be rejected. It is rejected accordingly. Rule is discharged.