The case revolves around the Patil family, heirs of the late Pandu Dhondu Patil, who owned several parcels of land in Mauje Chandrapada, Taluka-Vasai, District-Palghar. Following Pandu's death in 1945, the land was transferred to his legal heirs, with a Mutation Entry reflecting this in the revenue records. The family asserts that the land remains undivided since 1934, with Gajanan and Waman Patil as the primary heirs.

However, disputes arose when the names of Ganpat Bhoir and his descendants appeared in the revenue records, indicating their claim to the land. The Patil family contested this through various appeals, ultimately leading to a complex legal battle involving multiple suits and orders.

The petitioner filed a request under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013), asking for a dispute resolution by the appropriate authority regarding entitlement to compensation. This request was denied by the Deputy Collector, leading to the current petition.

The central argument presented by the petitioner is that the Deputy Collector was obligated to refer the matter to the designated authority under Section 64. The petitioner's counsel emphasized that since Waman Patil was never a party in the earlier civil suit regarding the land, any resulting decree should not bind the current claimants.

In contrast, the opposing counsel contended that the application did not sufficiently challenge the award, thereby not triggering the mandatory referral requirement under Section 64. They argued that the petitioners essentially sought a determination of rights rather than a dispute over the compensation itself, suggesting that the case fell more appropriately under Section 76, which addresses apportionment of compensation.

The legal distinctions between these sections became pivotal in the court's analysis. Section 64 mandates a referral when a dispute over compensation is raised, while Section 76 provides discretion to the Collector regarding the apportionment disputes.

The court concluded that the petitioners did not challenge the award in a manner necessitating a referral under Section 64. The request was more aligned with seeking clarity on the apportionment of compensation, thus falling under Section 76, where the Collector has discretion.

Given the unresolved legal status of the prior decrees and entries in favor of the respondents, the court found no justification to overturn the Deputy Collector's decision. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, emphasizing the need for substantial grounds to warrant a referral in cases of contested land ownership and compensation claims.

This case underscores the complexities surrounding land acquisition disputes in India, illustrating the critical importance of proper legal channels and documentation in asserting rights to property and compensation.