Facts: The petitioner, Ramubai Krushna Patil, claimed to be the daughter of late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil and sought her share of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Respondents 2 to 18, other successors-in-interest, initially acknowledged the petitioner's claim but later disputed her entitlement, alleging she was not Pandu's daughter. The Executing Court directed the parties to have their shares determined by a Civil Court.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner challenged the Executing Court's order via writ petitions (WP 10896/2025, WP 10897/2025, WP 10898/2025) in the Bombay High Court, arguing the Executing Court erred in relegating the matter to a Civil Court despite prior joint applications and heirship certificates acknowledging her as Pandu's daughter.
Issue: Did the Executing Court err in directing the parties to seek a declaration from the Civil Court regarding the petitioner's entitlement to compensation, given the prior consistent acknowledgements of her status as the daughter of the deceased landowner and the delay in raising the dispute?
Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the Executing Court erred. The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the Executing Court to release 50% of the compensation amount falling to the share of late Pandu @ Pandurang Patil to the petitioner, subject to her furnishing an indemnity bond and a bank guarantee.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that respondents 2 to 5 had consistently acknowledged the petitioner as Pandu's daughter in prior proceedings, including joint applications for heirship certificates and execution of awards. Their belated objection lacked credibility ("ex facie lacks credence"). The Court emphasized that admissions in pleadings constitute judicial admissions, signifying a waiver of proof. The delay and inaction on the part of the respondents in raising the dispute until the stage of distribution of compensation was also a significant factor. The Court also noted that the suit filed by some of the respondents lacked a specific prayer denying the petitioner's parentage. The High Court invoked its writ jurisdiction to remedy the injustice caused by the Executing Court's order.