IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that Section 64 mandates referral only when the award is challenged, while Section 76 allows discretion in referring disputes regarding compensation apportionment.

JUDGMENT :

(R.M. Joshi, J.) :

As per order dated 2nd August 2024 amendment was not carried out properly, hence, amendment be carried out, in view of order dated 2nd August 2024, forthwith.

2. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 29th January 2024 passed by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Palghar (Competent Authority), Mumbai Ahmedabad High Speed Rail Project, Vasai, refusing to refer dispute under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘Act of 2013’) to the Authority under Section 51 of Act.

3. The facts which lead to the filing of the present Petition can be narrated in brief as under:-

The Petitioner and Respondent No.13 and 32 Claim themselves to be the members of the Patil family i.e. heirs of late Pandu Dhondu Patil. Late Pandu was owner of the land bearing Survey No.38/3, 38/6, 51 and 61 situated at Mauje Chandrapada, Taluka-Vasai, District-Palghar. The Petitioner claims that after death of Pandu in the year 1945, the lands were transferred to his legal heirs and Mutation Entry bearing No.1345 was effected in the Revenue Record. Thus properties are claimed to be ancestral properties of Pandu and also that they were never divided since 1934. Pandu had two sons Gajanan Pandurang Patil and Waman Pandurang Patil. Waman was a bachelor. After demise of Waman, Gajanan was only surviving heir of deceased Pandu. The Petitioner and Respondent No.13 to 32 claim to be legal heirs of the Gajanan and also claim that their names are recorded in the Revenue record against the property in question. The Petitioner claims that he along with concerned Respondents is in exclusive, peaceful and actual possession of the said property. It is further case of the Petitioner that name of the Ganpat Bhoir was recorded in 7/12 extract in Mutation Entry No.1967 dated 7th December 1960 and vide Mutation Entry No.4656 names of Respondent Nos.4 to 12 were recorded in 7/12 extracts as heirs of the Ganpat Govind Bhoir. It is alleged by the Petitioner that these Respondents were never in possession or cultivation of the suit property. When it was realized to the Petitioners that the names of these Respondents are mutated in the Revenue record as against property in question, they filed Appeal being Appeal No.327 of 1951 challenging the Mutation Entry Nos.1967 and 4656 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Vasai. The Sub-Divisional Officer partly allowed the said Appeal and Mutation Entry No.1967 was cancelled and the enquiry was remanded to Tahasildar for fresh consideration. The Respondents appeared before the Sub-Divisional Officer and claimed that Waman Patil has mortgaged his share to L.B. Gonsalves, who had filed a suit bearing No.377/1951 for recovery of the amount. The said suit was decreed and the Darkhast bearing No. 51 of 1959 was filed for execution of the said decree. In the said execution proceedings predecessor of Respondents i.e. Ganpat Govind Bhoir had purchased share in the said properties. His name was entered into the revenue record as auction purchaser in an auction conducted by the execution Court in execution of decree passed by the Civil Court. The Petitioner also during the search found that in RCS No.377 of 1951 Waman was not added as party defendant and there was no decree passed against him.

4. The Petitioners further claim that being aggrieved by the order dated 13th June 2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the contesting Respondents filed Appeal before the Additional Collector, Palghar being R.T.S. Appeal No.127 of 2016. This Authority by order dated 10th July 2017 allowed the Appeal. This order came to be challenged before the Additional Collector, Palghar by the Petitioners and Respondent Nos.13 and 32 in a Revision before the Additional Commissioner, Kokan Division in RTS Revision No.1098 of 2017. The said Revision came to be dismissed on 28th February 2018. The challenge to the said order before the Hon’ble Min