The Patil family claims ownership of several plots of land located in Mauje Chandrapada, Taluka-Vasai, District-Palghar. The land, originally owned by the late Pandu Dhondu Patil, is asserted to be ancestral property. After Pandu's death in 1945, the land was passed down to his legal heirs, with a mutation entry recorded in the revenue records. The family’s claim is further complicated by the inclusion of other parties, including descendants of Ganpat Govind Bhoir, who assert that they have legal rights to the property due to a mortgage agreement from the 1950s.

The legal entanglement deepened when the Patil family filed an appeal against the inclusion of Bhoir's descendants in the land records, leading to a series of court proceedings over the years. Their appeals and revisions ultimately culminated in a pending writ petition challenging earlier decisions regarding the land.

   

In their application under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, the Patil family sought a determination regarding their entitlement to compensation for the land acquisition, arguing that the Deputy Collector should have referred the matter to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority. However, the Deputy Collector rejected this request, stating that there was no valid challenge to the award related to the land acquisition.

The family’s legal representatives contended that under Section 64, the Collector is mandated to refer disputes related to compensation to the appropriate authority. They argued that, since Waman Patil, a key figure in the property’s history, was not party to earlier civil suits, any resulting judgments should not affect the current claimants.

Upon review, the court found that the Patil family's application did not constitute a challenge to the award but was more aligned with Section 76 of the Act, which pertains to disputes over the apportionment of compensation. Consequently, the court ruled that it was not mandatory for the Collector to refer the dispute under Section 76.

The court also noted that previous judgments have clarified the necessity for a bonafide dispute to exist before a referral can be made to the civil court. Given the lack of a stay on previous court decisions regarding the property, the court concluded that the Deputy Collector acted within his rights in denying the referral.

The decision emphasizes the importance of presenting a clear and compelling case when contesting land acquisition awards and the complex interplay of historical ownership claims and contemporary legal frameworks. As the Patil family continues to navigate the legal labyrinth, their battle serves as a reminder of the challenges many face in asserting their rights in land disputes. With a pending writ petition and further legal avenues available, the family remains determined to seek justice for their ancestral property.