1
wp4434.09.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.4434 of 2009
1. Moreshwar s/o Yeshwant Deshpande,
Aged about 28 years,
Occupation - Student.
2. Chintamani s/o Yeshwant Deshpande,
Aged about 32 years,
Occupation - Agriculture.
3. Vyankatesh s/o Yeshwant Deshpande,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation - Business.
All above resident of Digras,
Taluka Digras, District Yavatmal. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Collector,
Yavatmal, District Yavatmal.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Darwah, Taluka Darwah,
District Yavatmal. ... Respondents
Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri S.B. Bissa, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
th Dated : 26 April, 2017 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:35:54 ::: 2 wp4434.09.odt Oral Judgment :
1. The award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the said Act") was passed on 29-3-1989. On 17-9-1996, the notice was issued to the petitioner-claimants to remain present in the office of Collector for collecting the amount of award. The petitioners claimed that the said notice was served upon them on 29-9-1996 and the reference under Section 18 of the said Act was preferred on 8-10-1996.
2. The Reference Court has dismissed the reference solely on the ground that the reference was barred by the law of limitation prescribed by Section 18(2)(b) of the said Act. There is no finding by the Reference Court that the petitioners were present either themselves or through their representative on the date when the award was passed on 29-3-1989 or that they had any notice of passing of the award on the said date. There is no finding of the Reference Court as to the date on which the notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act was actually served upon the ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:35:54 ::: 3 wp4434.09.odt petitioners. The limitation under Section 18(2)(b) of the said Act starts running from the date of knowledge of the award by the petitioners. In the absence of any finding on the relevant aspects of the matter, the Reference Court has committed an error in dismissing the reference as barred by the law of limitation. The judgment and order impugned cannot, therefore, be sustained and it will have to be quashed and set aside with an order of remand.
3. The petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 17-9-2003 passed by the Reference Court in L.A.C. No.20 of 1997, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Reference Court for decision afresh on all the aspects, including the question of limitation. The Reference Court shall permit the parties to lead oral as well as documentary evidence on the question of bar of limitation, as also on merits of the matter.
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:35:54 ::: 4
wp4434.09.odt
4. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar.
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:35:54 :::