The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority's power to review orders and its jurisdiction under the relevant sections of the act were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. Since both these petitions raise similar questions of law and facts, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. These petitions are directed against an order dated 31.01.2020, in file no. 2009/LNQ/CR-06, passed by respondent no. 3 Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) and Land acquisition Officer, Nilanga, District Latur, thereby allowing Review application filed by respondents no. 4 and 5 and their father Pandhrinath Laxmanrao Patil.

4. Brief facts leading to writ petition no. 2651 of 2020, are as follows -

. Petitioners and respondents no. 4 and 5 are joint Hindu family members. agricultural land Survey No. 18 admeasuring 21 acres 31 Gunthas, situated at village Dhanegaon, Taluka Deoni, District Latur, is their ancestral joint family property.

. The petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 106 of 2008 against respondents no. 4 and 5 / original defendants and others, seeking partition and separate possession of the above suit property, thereby claiming 1/3rd share in the lands and houses as described in schedule 'a' of the plaint. The said suit is pending.

. It appears that by way of mutations, the lands were mutated in the names of members of the joint family.

. admittedly, during pendency of the suit, the land in question came to be acquired for construction of Dhanegaon barrage on Manjara river at Dhanegaon.

. Lands, Survey No. 18/1 admeasuring 1 Hector 60 R each standing in the name of respondents no. 4 and 5 and their father, Survey No. 18/2 admeasuring 11 R standing in the name of present petitioners and Survey No. 18/3 admeasuring 27 R. standing in the name of Dhondiram, were acquired.

. an award is passed by respondent no. 3 on 22.09.2016. after passing of the award, the petitioners filed application with respondents no. 3 SDO, contending that though land Survey no. 18 stood in the name of different members of the joint family, they have share in the said land and suit for partition is pending in the Civil Court. The petitioners, therefore, requested respondent no. 3 not to disburse the amount of compensation in respect of land Survey No. 18. The petitioners, by application dated 19.07.2019, requested respondent no. 3 to refer the dispute for apportionment to the Tribunal constituted under the act.

. Respondent no. 4 also filed application dated 25.07.2019 with respondent no. 3 requesting not to disburse the amounts in view of pendency of civil suit. By order dated 13.11.2019, respondent no.3 referred the dispute, under Section 76 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement act, 2013 (in short, 'said act'), for apportionment of the amount to the Tribunal.

. Respondent no. 4 filed an appeal before respondent no. 2 Collector, Latur. Though, it was not maintainable, respondent no. 2 referred the matter to respondent no. 3 with a direction to decide the same in accordance to the law. Respondent no. 3 treated the application of respondent no. 4 as an application for review and allowed the said application and directed that the compensation for the acquired land Gat No. 18 be disbursed as per award. Before disbursing the compensation, an undertaking be obtained from the parties that if the Civil Court decides against them, they shall deposit the compensation amount with the Government. This order is impugned in the present petition.

5. Writ petition no. 2652 of 2020 filed by the son of the original defendant no. 4 (Dhondiram s/o. Narayanrao Patil) impugns the same order.

6. Heard the learned advocates for the petitioners, learned assistant Government Pleader for respondents no. 1 to 3 - State and the learned advocate for the respondents no. 4 and 5.

7. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable as respondent no. 3 has no power of review. Under Section 76 of the said act, only the Collector ha