The main legal point established in the judgment is the power of the Executing Court to supervise the execution of a partition decree for agricultural lands, determine disputes related to the correctness of the decree executed by the Collector, and prevent unjust enrichment by parties in the execution of partition decrees.

JUDGMENT

Mangesh S. Patil, J. - Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. More waives service for the respondents. At the request of the parties the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The question that crops up for the decision of this Court is as to if even before a decree for partition of agricultural lands is satisfied by its division by metes and bounds as contemplated under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure only some of the sharers can reap the benefits of receiving compensation of some of the suit properties acquired in the mean time under the Land Acquisition Act, to the extent of their indivisible share as defined in the decree.

3. The facts are not in dispute,

(i) The respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No. 189/1997 for general partition and separate possession of joint family properties consisting of agricultural lands as well as house properties. The suit properties consisted of seven agricultural lands of varied extent collectively admeasuring 26 Hectares and 89 Are. According to decree, the respondents who were originally three in numbers Kasudabai, Gayabai and Prayagabai were held to be entitled to a 1/15th share each in all the suit properties.

(ii). They filed Regular Darkhast No. 8/2011 which is pending before the Executing Court and a copy of the decree was sent to the Collector for effecting partition of the agricultural lands by metes and bounds as is contemplated under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Collector has still not effected any partition by metes and bounds and has not separated shares of the parties.

(iii). In the meanwhile, different portions from five agricultural lands out of the suit properties were acquired by the State Government which was totally admeasuring 18-Hectares 43-Are. The petitioners asserting that in view of the decree the respondents collectively have 1/5th share in the acquired lands and they have the remaining 4/5th, made a Reference (L.A.R. No. 317/2015) under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 only to the extent of 4/5th share of the total acquired land calculating it as 14 Hectares 20-Are.

(iv) The respondents submitted an application in the Reference (Exh. 6) seeking their impleadment, but the application was rejected. They also submitted an application with the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for apportionment seeking a Reference to be made in that respect. But even that application was rejected. The respondents challenged the order passed by the Reference Court refusing them to implead by filing a Writ Petition in this Court.

However, even before the Writ Petition could be decided, the Reference Court decided the Land Acquisition Reference on 30.11.2018. The petitioners were held entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 2,38,75,444/-.

They have filed Special Darkhast No. 4/2019.

(v) Faced with the awkward situation, the respondents filed an application (Exh. 48) in the Regular Darkhast No. 8/2011 which is for execution of the partition decree, seeking a direction to call the amount of award from Special Darkhast No. 4/2019 in this execution of partition decree. The petitioners opposed that application on the ground that it was not competent for the Executing Court to go beyond the decree and issue any such direction.

(vi). After hearing the parties, by the order impugned in this Writ Petition the Executing Court directed the petitioners to deposit the amount of compensation received by them in the Reference in the Executing Court within 15 days of its receipt.

4. The whole emphasis of learned advocate Mr. Mahajan for the petitioners is on the fact that admittedly the petitioners have 4/5th share in the suit properties and even if those have not been divided by metes and bounds they have lodged Reference only to the extent of their share and are to receive the compensation only to that extent. It is not that the Reference in respect of all the lands that were