1 wp7607.2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 7607/2017
Gopalrao S/o Apparao Sarnaik,
Aged about 85 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Mohaja Road, Tq. And Dist. Washim
..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] The Collector Washim, Distt. Washim
2] Special Land Acquisition,
Officer No. 2, Washim, Distt. Washim
3] Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation
Division Washim, Distt. Washim
... RESPONDENTS
=====================================
Shri V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri N.H. Joshi, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2
Shri V.G. Palshikar, Advocate for the respondent no. 3
=====================================
CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
DATED :- 4 December, 2017
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard Shri V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri
N.H. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and
2 and Shri V.G. Palshikar, Advocate for the respondent no. 3. The
advocates for respondents have put in appearance on being served with
the copy of the petition and as legal issue is raised in the petition, the
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 00:18:37 :::
2 wp7607.2017.odt
petition is taken up for hearing.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2] The petitioner (original claimant) has challenged the order
passed by the Reference Court rejecting the application (Exh. 11) filed
by the petitioner seeking permission to amend the reference. The
petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Reference Court
on 08/11/2017 directing that the evidence on behalf of the petitioner is
closed and the matter is fixed for recording of evidence of the
respondents.
3] The petitioner had filed the application (Exh. 11) seeking
permission to amend the reference. This application was rejected on
23/08/2017 with costs of Rs. 1,000/- which the petitioner was required
to deposit till next date on which the proceedings were fixed, the next
date being 04/10/2017. On 04/10/2017, the petitioner sought time to
deposit the amount of costs. The trial Court granted time till
08/11/2017 to deposit the amount of costs. On 08/11/2017, the
petitioner sought adjournment on the ground that he intends to
challenge the order passed on the application (Exh. 11) on 23/08/2017.
This application is rejected by the trial Court by the order passed on
08/11/2017 and it is directed that the evidence on behalf of the
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 00:18:37 :::
3 wp7607.2017.odt
petitioner is closed and the matter is fixed for recording of evidence of
the respondents.
4] The tenor of the impugned orders show that the
applications have been rejected as the reference is pending since 2003.
The learned trial Judge reeled under the impression that the petitioner
is trying to delay the disposal of the reference proceedings. The
petitioner is seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. The
impression carried by the learned trial Judge is without any basis. It
cannot be said that the petitioner is gaining anything by protracting the
matter.
5] By the proposed amendment, the petitioner seeks to bring
on record pleadings to substantiate his claim for fruit trees.
6] Considering the facts of the case, I find that the Reference
Court has committed an error by rejecting the application (Exh. 11) and
by directing that the evidence on behalf of the petitioner is closed.
In my view, in the facts of the case, the following order
would sub-serve the ends of justice:-
O R D E R
1] The order passed on the application (Exh. ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 00:18:37 :::
4 wp7607.2017.odt
11) on 23/08/2017 is set aside. 2] The application (Exh. 11) is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to amend the reference. 3] The order passed by the Reference Court on 08/11/2017 is set aside. The Reference Court shall permit the petitioner to lead evidence after the amendment is carried out in the reference. 4] The Reference Court shall proceed with the reference further and decide it according to law. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE A n s a r i ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 00:18:37 :::