Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, has allowed three writ petitions and set aside orders of the executing court that had refused to release any part of land acquisition compensation on the ground of an alleged heirship dispute. The Court held that where co-claimants had consistently made judicial admissions acknowledging the petitioner as a legal heir and raised no dispute at the reference or execution stage, the executing court could not indefinitely withhold compensation by relegating parties to a civil suit. Holding that the objection was an afterthought lacking bona fides, the Court directed release of 50% of the compensation to the petitioner on safeguards.
Facts
The petitions arose from execution proceedings of three land acquisition awards relating to lands situated at Mauje Bokadvira, Taluka Uran, District Raigad, acquired for the Navi Mumbai Project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The lands originally belonged to three brothers, including Pandu alias Pandurang Patil. The petitioner claimed to be the daughter of Pandu Patil, while respondent Nos.2 to 5 were the heirs of her brother, Ramesh Patil.
After acquisition, the petitioner and the respondents jointly sought references under Section 28A(3) of the 1894 Act. The Reference Court passed awards in 2016 granting enhanced compensation. Joint execution proceedings were thereafter initiated, and the State deposited the awarded amounts in 2019. When withdrawal of compensation was sought, respondent No.2, for the first time, objected to the petitioner’s entitlement, alleging that she was not the biological daughter of Pandu Patil. On this basis, the executing court declined release of compensation and directed parties to obtain a declaration from a civil court.
Issues
The principal issues before the High Court were whether an executing court could refuse to disburse compensation on the basis of a belated heirship dispute not raised before the Reference Court, whether long-standing judicial admissions acknowledging heirship could be ignored at the execution stage, and whether the writ court could mould relief by directing conditional release of compensation despite absence of a prior apportionment reference under Sections 18 or 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were perverse and caused grave injustice, particularly given her advanced age. It was argued that throughout the land acquisition proceedings, reference applications, and execution petitions, respondent Nos.2 to 5 had unequivocally acknowledged her status as the daughter of Pandu Patil. Joint heirship certificates had also been obtained recognising her as a legal heir of both Pandu Patil and his wife.
The petitioner submitted that no apportionment dispute was ever raised under Section 30 of the 1894 Act and that the objection was a tactical afterthought aimed at stalling disbursement. Reliance was placed on settled law that admissions in pleadings constitute judicial admissions dispensing with proof. The executing court, it was argued, exceeded its jurisdiction by directing parties to a civil suit and effectively denying the fruits of the award.
Respondents’ arguments
The respondents opposed the petitions, asserting that a serious dispute existed regarding the petitioner’s lineage and entitlement to compensation. They contended that such a dispute could only be adjudicated by a civil court and that the executing court rightly refrained from releasing compensation in the absence of a declaration. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court authority to argue that questions falling within Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act could not be decided in execution.
The respondents further pointed out that a civil suit had been instituted in 2025 challenging the petitioner’s entitlement and argued that until the suit was decided, release of compensation would prejudice their rights.
Analysis of the law
The High Court undertook an extensive analysis of the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly Sections 18 and 30. It reiterated that the jurisdiction of a Reference Court is strictly confined to the matters referred by the Collector and cannot be expanded at the instance of parties. Apportionment disputes must ordinarily be raised under Section 30 within a reasonable time.
The Court emphasised that while there is no rigid limitation for raising a Section 30 dispute, principles of finality, conduct of parties, and stage of proceedings are critical. A party that consciously participated in proceedings as a co-heir and allowed awards to attain finality cannot later derail execution on a plea directly contrary to its own pleadings.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied on authoritative precedents, including decisions of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court of India, holding that Reference Courts under the 1894 Act exercise limited jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate matters beyond the scope of reference. Judgments explaining the distinction between Sections 18 and 30 were applied to underline that apportionment disputes must be timely and bona fide.
The Court also relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence recognising the wide equitable powers of High Courts under writ jurisdiction to remedy manifest injustice, even where procedural technicalities exist.
Court’s reasoning
On facts, the High Court found that respondent Nos.2 to 5 had made clear, consistent, and unequivocal judicial admissions acknowledging the petitioner as the daughter of Pandu Patil in reference proceedings, execution petitions, and heirship certificate applications. Such admissions, the Court held, stood on a higher pedestal than evidentiary admissions and amounted to waiver of proof.
The Court noted that no apportionment dispute was raised for several years after deposit of compensation and that the civil suit filed in 2025 appeared prima facie barred by limitation and casually drafted. In these circumstances, the executing court erred in indefinitely withholding compensation. Balancing equities, the Court held that partial release with safeguards would meet the ends of justice.
Conclusion
The writ petitions were allowed. The impugned orders were quashed and set aside. The executing court was directed to release 50% of the compensation attributable to the share of late Pandu Patil in favour of the petitioner, subject to execution of an indemnity bond for half the amount and furnishing of a bank guarantee for the remaining half. The Court clarified that the pending civil suit would be decided independently on its own merits, uninfluenced by observations in the writ judgment.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that executing courts cannot frustrate land acquisition awards by entertaining belated and contradictory objections to heirship, particularly where parties have made binding judicial admissions. It underscores the importance of finality in land acquisition proceedings and affirms the High Court’s readiness to exercise writ jurisdiction to prevent manifest injustice to award holders. The ruling provides guidance on balancing equities through conditional release of compensation where disputes are raised at an advanced stage.
Case law references
- Rai Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur v. Secretary of State: Held that jurisdiction under the Land Acquisition Act is special and limited to matters referred; applied to confine scope of dispute.
- Kothamasu Kanakarathamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh: Clarified distinction between references under Sections 18 and 30; relied upon to assess apportionment disputes.
- Madan v. State of Maharashtra: Explained different fields of operation of Sections 18 and 30; principles applied.
- Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India: Relied upon to affirm wide equitable powers of High Courts under writ jurisdiction.
FAQs
Q1. Can an executing court withhold land acquisition compensation due to a late heirship dispute?
Not ordinarily. If parties raised no dispute earlier and made judicial admissions, courts may order release of compensation despite belated objections.
Q2. What is the effect of admissions in land acquisition proceedings?
Judicial admissions dispense with proof and bind the party making them, preventing contradictory pleas at a later stage.
Q3. Can the High Court order partial release of compensation with safeguards?
Yes. In writ jurisdiction, the High Court can balance equities by directing conditional release to prevent injustice.