1 Jud.FA 41.06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal (L.A.) No. 41/2006
Appellant:- Shri Akbar Umar Teli,
aged about 66 yrs, Occ.
Cultivator, R/o. Digras,
Tah. Digras, Dist. Yavatmal.
VERSUS
Respondents:- 1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yaotmal.
2. The Collector, Yaotmal.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer &
Land Acquisition Officer, Darwha
(Benefit Zone), Dist. Yaotmal.
4. Sub Divisional Engineer, Vidarbha
Irrigation Development
Corporation, Arunavati Project,
Diggras, Tah. Digras, Dist.
Yeotmal.(amended as per order
dated 07.12.2017)
Shri A. Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for appellant.
Shri M. A. Kadu, Assistant Government Pleader for respodent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri V. G.Palshikar, Advocate for respondent No.4.
___________________________________________________________________________
WITH
Cross Objection No. 15/2006
Appellant:- Shri Akbar Umar Teli,
aged about 66 yrs, Occ.
Cultivator, R/o. Digras,
Tah. Digras, Dist. Yaotmal.
VERSUS
Respondents:- 1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yaotmal.
2. The Collector, Yaotmal.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer &
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 00:54:12 :::
2 Jud.FA 41.06.odt
Land Acquisition Officer, Darwha
(Benefit Zone), Dist. Yaotmal.
Cross-Objector 4. Sub Divisional Engineer, Vidarbha
Irrigation Development
Corporation, Arunavati Project,
Diggras, Tah. Digras, Dist.
Yeotmal.(amended as per order
dated 07.12.2017)
Shri A. Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for appellant.
Shri M. A. Kadu, Assistant Government Pleader respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for respondent No.4 - Cross Objector.
___________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 07.12.2017.
Leave to amend the cause title of the appeal and the cross-objection by adding the words "Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation between the "Sub-Divisional Engineer" and "Arunawait Project, Digras" in respect of the description of respondent No.4 in the First Appeal as well as cross-objection is granted to Shri Palshikar, learned counsel for the cross-objector. Amendment be carried out forthwith. Oral Judgment :
1. Heard Shri Jibhkate, learned counsel for the appellant/original claimant. Shri M.A. Kadu, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Palshikar, learned Advocate for newly added respondent No. 4 in the appeal and cross-objection.
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 00:54:12 :::
3 Jud.FA 41.06.odt
2. Both the appeal and the cross-objection arise out of judgment dated 3rd January, 2004 rendered in Land Acquisition Case No. 66/1994 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad. The dispute involves an issue about grant of just and proper compensation to the original claimant for the land which has been acquired in the present case for the Arunavati Project, Tah. Digras, Dist. Yaotmal. The reference application had been filed in November 1988. At that time, the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (for short VIDC) was not in existence. It was constituted later on and it came into being in March 1997. Even at the inception, Arunavati Project was not handed over to the VIDC and therefore, an amendment was carried out in Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Act, 1997 by Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Ordinance, 1998 (Mah. Ord. XV of 1998) whereby the Act was extended even to Arunavati Project situated in Yaotmal District. After this amendment , the VIDC should have been impleaded as a party respondent. However, the VIDC was not joined as a party respondent.
3. In a similar group of appeals starting with First Appeal No. 791/2009 (State of Maharashtra & ors. Vs. Swapnil S/o Girdhar Nagpure) decided on 14 th September, 2017, a submission was made on behalf of VIDC that as the VIDC was not made a party respondent in the reference application, the ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 00:54:12 ::: 4 Jud.FA 41.06.odt dispute about enhancement of compensation was required to be remitted back to the Reference Court for a decision afresh by relying upon the cases of Abdul Rasak & ors. Vs. Kerala Water Authority & ors reported in (2002) 3 SCC 228 and Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. Santosh Janba Warghane & anr. reported in (2017) 4 Mh. L. J.64. This Court held that those appeals were squarely covered by the ratio of the said cases of Abdul Rasak and Santosh (supra). Accordingly, this Court remitted back the dispute involved in those matters for a decision afresh, to the Reference Court.
4. In the present case, the facts are similar and therefore, I do not see any reason for me to take a different view of the matter. Of-course, Shri Jibhkate, learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to his knowledge, the VIDC was represented before the Reference Court. However, on going through the original reference application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, I find that the contention is not consistent with the record. VIDC was never joined as a party to the proceedings before the Reference Court. The statement is, therefore, not accepted. Thus, I find that this appeal and the cross-objection both being squarely covered by the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid group of appeals the dispute raised by the Reference Application ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 00:54:12 ::: 5 Jud.FA 41.06.odt would have to be remitted back, just as it was done earlier.
5. At this stage, Shri Jibhkate, learned counsel for the appellant submits that at least cost of this matter be saddled on the VIDC for the reason that the appellant could not be said to be at fault in not joining the VIDC as a party. He further submits that it was the duty of the Sub-Divisional Engineer of Arunavati Project to place on record the change of circumstances after coming into force the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Act, 1997, of which he was well aware. He also submits that the Sub-Divisional Engineer, as a matter of fact could not have allowed himself to continue as a party respondent in his own right and therefore, he ought to have placed on record the developments of law which adversely affected his status in the matter, but, he did not. Shri Palshikar, learned counsel for VIDC objects to this. He submits that the VIDC could not have been said to be at fault and in-fact, if the change in the status occurred because of change of law, the party whose status is affected cannot be made to pay the cost.
6. I find that there is only half truth in the submission of learned counsel for the VIDC. The change of law may not be in the hands of the authorities but is not and cannot be behind the back of the authorities. It is always within the ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 00:54:12 ::: 6 Jud.FA 41.06.odt knowledge at least post change of law, of authorities, either directly or presumptively. If the authorities are directly or presumptively possessed of knowledge about change of their status by operation of law, would it not be their duty to bring this fact on record of the case and if they fail in this duty, which party is to be blamed? Obviously, the party failing in the duty, which is the case here, would have to be answerable to the claim made regarding imposition of cost made on it. In this way, I find that VIDC would have to bear the cost of the proceedings.
7. In the result, the appeal and the cross-objection both are allowed and impugned judgment and order are quashed and set aside.
8. The reference application, is remitted back to the Reference Court for its decision afresh in accordance with law from the stage of evidence. It is made clear that evidence already tendered by the parties shall be valid and taken into consideration by the Reference Court. The parties shall be at liberty to adduce further evidence if they choose to do so.
9. The claimants having been permitted to withdraw the decreetal amount on furnishing security/surety etc. shall be bound by those conditions and shall also abide by the final decree that will now be passed afresh by the Reference Court. ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 00:54:12 :::
7 Jud.FA 41.06.odt
10. The Reference Court shall allow the VIDC to be joined as a party-respondent. The amendment in this regard be carried out within one week from the date of appearance of the parties.
11. The parties to appear before the Reference Court on 18th December, 2017. The Reference Court shall dispose of the reference application within six months from the date of appearance of the parties before it.
12. The parties shall cooperate with the Reference Court without seeking any adjournment except on the ground of factors beyond their control.
13. The costs of appeal and the cross-objection shall be borne by the VIDC.
14. The appeal and cross-objection stand disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE Gohane ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 00:54:12 :::