The court affirmed that plaintiffs not included in original acquisition proceedings can claim their share of compensation through independent civil suits despite the Land Acquisition Act's provisions.

JUDGMENT :

1] By the present Writ Petition, the petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 02.02.2021 to the extent of clause (4) of the operative order passed by the Appellate Court, District Judge-1, Beed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.31/2020 thereby rejecting the application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents – defendant nos. 1 to 3 from withdrawing the compensation amount vide award passed in LAR No.335/2012 and thus maintaining the order passed below Exh.5 by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed dated 02.07.2020 to the above extent. The effect of order dated 02.02.2021 of the Appellate Court is that the application for the injunction filed by the petitioners – plaintiff is allowed to the extent of granting temporary injunction restraining defendants from alienating the suit property. However, the Appellate Court has not interfered in the order of the trial Court to the extent of permitting defendant nos. 1 to 3 from withdrawing compensation amount vide award passed in LAR No.335/2012.

Brief facts leading to filing the present writ petition can be summarized as under :

2] The facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties are that one Mr.Baburao Kanhu Dahatonde was the owner of the following properties :

All these properties were ancestral properties of Baburao and situated at village Underkhel, Taluka Ashti, District Beed. Baburao had two wives, namely, Kalabai and Kausabai. As there was no male issue to Kalabai, Baburao married with Kausabai and defendant nos.1 to 6 are born out of the said wedlock. Out of the suit properties, property of survey No.58/0/14, admeasuring 1 Hector 20 R. of village Underkhel, Taluka Ashti, is the exclusive property of the plaintiffs as it is inherited by them through their mother as per compromise decree passed in RCS No.493/1998. On 10.01.1997, following properties of Baburao were acquired by the Government :

Baburao expired on 23.03.2006. The award in respect of aforesaid acquired properties came to be passed on 29.09.2004 and the compensation amount of Rs.8,07,514/- was paid on 28.04.2006. Said payment was withdrawn by the defendant nos. 1 to 3 and not a single rupee was paid to the plaintiffs towards their share. On 05.12.2006, the defendant nos. 1 to 3 submitted an application to take entry of death of Baburao and their names in the record of right. On 10.01.2017, mutation entry no.573 was taken showing that Baburao was survived by 3 sons and 9 daughters and widow Kausabai. However, in the revenue record, only names of the defendant nos. 1 to 3 were entered to the record of the suit property and names of the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 4 to 7 were not entered due to collusion of defendant nos. 1 to 3 with the concerned revenue officer. After demise of Baburao, defendant nos. 1 to 3 stopped giving share of the agricultural produce of the suit land to the plaintiffs. As such, the plaintiffs demanded their share in the compensation amount of Rs.8,07,514/- received by defendant nos. 1 to 3. Similarly, plaintiffs also demanded their share in the produce of agricultural suit land. However, the defendant nos. 1 to 3 claimed to be the only legal heirs of deceased Baburao. As such, the present suit is filed claiming share in the compensation amount of the acquired land and for partition of the suit land. The property of survey No.58/0/14 is devolved upon the plaintiffs from their mother as per Court decree. The compensation is yet to be paid to the plaintiffs.

3] It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are having 1/13th share each in the suit properties. They have also share in the compensation amount granted in LAR No.335/2012. The compensation amount is not yet deposited in the said award. Henc