← Library
Bombay High CourtCRA/254/2025disposed off

Chandrakant Ambrushi Pawar And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

2025-12-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar2 pages

44-CRA-254-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 254 OF 2025 Chandrakant Ambrushi Pawar And Ors ...Applicants

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

...Respondents

Adv. Abhijit D. Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. J. P. Patil, AGP for State.

CORAM

: S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2025 P.C.:

1.

Present Application takes exception to order dated 21st September 2024 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barshi whereby applicant's application under Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking correction in judgment and decree passed in Reference No.28 of 2003 has been rejected.

2.

Heard learned Advocates appearing for respective parties. 3.

Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for applicant, submits that Applicants's land from Gat No.420 was acquired and there were trees, a well and a constructed house on ADN

44-CRA-254-2025.doc said land. Land Acquisition Officer, in his award, granted compensation towards land, well, trees as well as house. However, Reference Court did not grant any compensation towards aforesaid heads except land. Reference Court merely enhanced compensation towards land and observed in its order that applicant had not led any evidence regarding trees, well, drip and house property etc.

4.

Aforesaid submissions on behalf of applicant would show that applicant seeks to challenge non-grant of compensation under particular heads in award passed by Reference Court. Such a prayer does not fall within purview of Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure.

5.

Trial Court has rightly considered scope of jurisdiction under Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure and refused to entertain applicant's application. This Court does not find any fault with impugned order. Hence, revision application stands rejected. 6.

It is made clear that applicant is at liberty to avail any other remedy as permissible under law in respect of claims raised in application.

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) ADN