Ramchandra Namdev Vhanmane And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI by SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI Date:

2025.04.07 17:15:29 +0530 1 10.WP.404.25.docx Revati

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 404 OF 2025 Ramchandra Namdev Vhanmane & Anr

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

______________________________________________________ Mr Mahesh Rawool a/w Mr Sachin Gawade, for the Petitioner. Ms V R Raje, AGP for the Respondent.

______________________________________________________

CORAM

M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

DATED:

4 April 2025 PC:- 1.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after this petition was instituted, the reference has been made. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a suit for partition pending between the parties and therefore, reference should have been made to the Civil Court where the dispute of the partition is already pending.

3.

Learned counsel for the parties dispute as to whether this reference is under Section 64 or 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act). 4.

Irrespective of whether the reference is under Section 64 or 76, the same has to be made to the 'Authority' as provided

2 10.WP.404.25.docx under both the provisions. There is no question of making a reference to the Civil Court.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner now states that we should clarify that all the contention of all parties should be left open to be raised before the Authority. We clarify that all contentions of all parties are left open to be raised before the Authority. The Authority shall dispose of the reference in accordance with law and we clarify that we have not examined rival contentions and issues regards enhancement or apportionment.

6.

The Petition is disposed of in the above terms without any cost order.

(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)