Dismissed¶¶41

Rudrapratap Ramsudarshan Tripathi v. Sub Divisional Officer Bhiwandi and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2026WP/1171/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 76 RFCTLARR Act 2013 apportionment dispute; land acquisition compensation payment to recorded owners per 7/12 Extract; agreement to sell versus registered sale deed; specific performance suit pending; Sub-Divisional Officer Bhiwandi orders upheld; writ petitions dismissed; Bombay High Court; distinguishes W.P. No. 6218 of 2022 (Shrikrishna Sambhare v. State of Maharashtra, order dt. 13-12-2022); Manish Pitale; Shreeram V. Shirsat.

What did the court decide?

This Court found no error committed by Respondent No. 1 in rejecting the petitioners' objections and directing the compensation amounts to be paid to the recorded owners of the subject land. ¶¶35

Rudrapratap Ramsudarshan Tripathi vs Sub Divisional Officer… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the Respondent No. 1 was bound to refer the dispute regarding payment of land-acquisition compensation to the authority constituted under Section 76 of the Act of 2013 (dispute as to apportionment), instead of deciding the matter himself in the impugned orders. +1 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

The dispute sought to be raised by the petitioners is not a dispute regarding apportionment; it is a dispute concerning the rights claimed by the petitioners in their entirety in the subject lands, which are yet to be decided by the Competent Civil Court. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 proceeded correctly in accordance with law, given the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the private respondents and their status as recorded owners.

¶¶40

Ratio / Principle

This Court found no error committed by Respondent No. 1 in rejecting the petitioners' objections and directing the compensation amounts to be paid to the recorded owners of the subject land.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

The Division Bench order dated 13th December 2022 in Writ Petition No. 6218 of 2022 concerned a suit for partition and possession in which the respective shares of the parties were undetermined, giving rise to an apportionment dispute requiring referral under Section 76; the facts of the present writ petitions are clearly distinguishable, so the petitioners cannot rely upon that order.ratio¶¶39
No liberty was necessary, but it was observed that if the petitioners approach the Competent Civil Court in the pending suits to seek directions in respect of the compensation amount disbursed to the private respondents, that Court shall decide such applications strictly in accordance with law.obiter¶¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Manish Pitale & Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ.), 18.02.2026 — Writ Petitions Nos. 1171, 50, 1143, 1144 and 1257 of 2026 dismissed. The petitioners, claiming under agreements of sale executed by the original owners (who later executed registered sale deeds in favour of the private respondents, whose names stand recorded as owners in the 7/12 Extracts), challenged orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi rejecting their objections and directing land-acquisition compensation to be paid to the private respondents. HELD: (i) the dispute raised by the petitioners is not a dispute of 'apportionment' attracting referral to the authority under Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; it concerns rights claimed by them in their entirety, pending adjudication before the Competent Civil Court where they have sued for specific performance and for setting aside the registered sale deeds, without any interim order in their favour; (ii) Respondent No. 1 therefore committed no error in paying the compensation to the recorded owners; (iii) the Division Bench order dated 13.12.2022 in W.P. No. 6218 of 2022 (Shrikrishna s/o Shivshankar Sambhare (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra), relied on by counsel, is distinguishable since it arose from a partition suit in which shares were undetermined. The Court observed that if the petitioners move the pending civil suits for directions regarding the disbursed compensation, the Competent Civil Court shall decide such applications strictly in accordance with law.

¶1

19-WP-1171-2026.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA DEEPAK DEEPAK GAIKWAD GAIKWAD Date: 2026.02.20 14:44:08 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1171 OF 2026

¶6

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 50 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1143 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1257 OF 2026 Rudrapratap Ramsudarshan Tripathi .. Appellant

¶7

V/s. Sub Divisional Officer Bhiwandi And .. Respondents Ors

¶8

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1144 OF 2026 Rudrapratap Ramsudarshan Tripathi .. Appellant V/s. Sub divisional officer and Ors .. Respondents -------------------

¶9

Mr. Kamlesh Tiwari, a/w Mr. Pulkit Tiwari, for the petitioners in all the petitions.

¶10

Ms. Mansi S. Bane, AGP, a/w Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/1171/2026 & WP/50/2026.

¶11

Mr. A. A. Alaspurkar, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/1143/2026.

¶12

Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/1144/2026.

¶13

Ms. P. M. J. Deshpande, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/1257/2026.

¶14

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY 2026.

PC:

1 of 6

Sweety

19-WP-1171-2026.doc

These petitions have been filed by the petitioners claiming that the Respondent No. 1 - Sub-Divisional Officer has committed an error in passing the impugned orders, whereby objections raised by the petitioners have been rejected and the Respondent No. 1 has directed the amount of compensation pursuant to acquisition of land to be paid to the private respondents in these petitions.

¶21

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the only recourse available to the Respondent No. 1 was to have referred the dispute under Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013, to the authority constituted under the provisions of the said Act.

¶22

Section 76 of the Act of 2013 pertains to disputes as to aportionment and in the light of such disputes being raised, the requirement of referring such disputes to the authority.

¶23

In the present case, the petitioners claim that the original owners of the land had executed agreements of sale in their favor. According to them, despite having executed such agreements, the original owners executed registered sale deeds in favor of the private respondents in

2 of 6

Sweety

19-WP-1171-2026.doc

these petitions. It is an admitted position that in pursuance of the registered sale deeds being executed in favor of the private respondents, their names were duly included in the revenue records (7/12 Extracts). In other words, on the strength of registered documents, the names of the private respondents have been recorded in the revenue records as the owners of the subject land.

¶28

The petitioners have filed civil suits before the Competent Court seeking specific performance of the agreements upon which they rely, in which they have joined the original owners as defendants and they have also sought setting aside of the registered sale deeds executed by the original owners in favor of the private respondents in these writ petitions.

¶29

In other words, as on today, the recorded owners of the subject lands are the private respondents in these writ petitions. The claim of the petitioners is pending adjudication before the Civil Court.

¶30

It is in this backdrop that the Respondent No. 1 has passed the impugned orders, specifically taking note of the factual position recorded hereinabove. It is recorded in the impugned orders that only the names of the private respondents herein are recorded as owners in

3 of 6

Sweety

19-WP-1171-2026.doc

the revenue records (7/12 Extracts) and even in the civil suits pending before the Competent Courts, no interim order has been passed in favor of the petitioners. Thereupon, the Respondent No. 1 has rejected the objections raised by the petitioners and proceeded to direct the compensation amounts to be paid to the recorded owners of the subject land.

¶35

We do not find any error committed by Respondent No. 1 in the facts and circumstances of the present case. We also are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners when he relies upon order dated 13th December 2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6218 of 2022 (Shrikrishna s/o Shivshankar Sambhare (Patil) and Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors). We find that the said order concerned a situation where the petitioners had filed a suit for partition and possession of the properties, including the property that was subject matter of the writ petition. The Division Bench of this Court found that since the dispute between the parties in the form of the said suit was pending before the Competent Court, wherein the respective shares of the parties were yet to be determined, a dispute regarding apportionment clearly arose and therefore, the dispute ought to have been referred to the authority under Section 76

4 of 6

Sweety

19-WP-1171-2026.doc

of the Act of 2013.

The facts of these writ petitions are clearly distinguishable and therefore, the petitioners cannot rely upon the said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. We are of the opinion that the Respondent No. 1 proceeded correctly in accordance with law because the dispute sought to be raised by the petitioners cannot be said to be a dispute regarding apportionment, rather it is a dispute concerning the rights claimed by the petitioners in their entirety in the subject lands, which are yet to be decided by Competent Civil Court. In the face of registered sale deeds executed in favor of the private respondents and they being the recorded owners of the subject properties, no fault can be found with the Respondent No. 1 in passing the impugned orders.

¶41

In view of the above, the writ petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.

¶42

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that liberty may be reserved for the petitioners to approach the Competent Civil Court where the suits are pending in order to seek appropriate directions with regard to the amounts of compensation disbursed to the private respondents. In fact, no such liberty is necessary. Yet, it is

5 of 6

Sweety

19-WP-1171-2026.doc

observed that if the petitioners approach the Competent Civil Court in the pending suits to seek certain directions in respect of the compensation amount, the said Competent Civil Court shall decide such applications strictly in accordance with law.

¶47

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

¶48

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶49

6 of 6

¶50

Sweety

Rudrapratap Ramsudarshan Tripathi v. Sub Divisional Officer Bhiwandi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudrapratap Ramsudarshan Tripathi v. Sub Divisional Officer Bhiwandi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S. Viorica Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs the Authorized Officer Union Bank of India and Ors.

Iifl Home Finance Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra Thro. Assi. Govt. Pleader

Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. Throu. Sameesh Sahadevan vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader

Bharat Cooperative Bank (Mumbai) Limited vs State of Maharashtra, through Assistant Govt. Pleader

The Mogaveera Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Government Pleader

Avadhoot Anant Waskar vs State Bank of India