1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 150 of 2001
Appellant : 1. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation
Division, Nagpur
1A. Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, Nagpur, through its Executive
Engineer, Medium Project Division, Civil
Lines, Nagpur
versus
Respondents : 1. Shamrao s/o Janba Dangore (Dead)
through his legal representatives -
(1) Smt Indirabai wd/o Shyamrao Dangore,
aged about 48 years, Occ: Household, r/o
Khumari, Tahsil Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur
(2) Pradeep s/o Shyamrao Dangore, aged
about 27 years, Occ: Agriculturist, r/o
Khumari, Tahsil Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur
(3) Kishor s/o Shyamrao Dangore, aged
about 23 years, Occ: Student, r/o
Khumari, Tahsil Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:54:56 :::
2
(4) Sau Ashabai w/o Tejram Chandurkar,
aged about 29 years, Occ: Housewife, r/o
Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur
(5) Sau Shaila w/o Sudhakarrao Ghatol,
aged about 25 years, Occ: Household, r/o
Lonkhairi, Tahsil Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur
2. Smt Yashodabai wd/o Pandurang Nerkar,
aged about 60 years, resident of Mohpa,
Tahsil Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur
3. The State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Collectorate, Nagpur
5. The Collector, Nagpur
Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for appellant
Shri A. P. Raghute, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 2
Ms Tajwar Khan, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents no. 3, 4 and 5
----------
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 8th June 2017 ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:54:56 ::: 3 Oral Judgment
1. This appeal questions the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 31.1.2001 delivered in Land Acquisition Case No. 209 of 1993 by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. I have heard Shri V. G. Palshikar, learned counsel for appellants; Shri A. P. Raghute, learned counsel for legal representatives of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and Ms Tajwar Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents no. 3, 4 and 5.
2. Previously, this appeal was dismissed by this Court by order passed on 267th October 2016. The reason was that the appellant was not found entitled to file and maintain this appeal as the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation had no right to participate in the proceedings before the Collector or the Reference Court. The order of dismissal was challenged in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court by order passed on 20 th March 2007 set aside the order of dismissal of appeal holding that the appellant should participate in the proceedings pertaining to the compensation, it being beneficiary and under liability to pay the compensation. The Supreme Court has remitted this appeal to this Court for adjudicating it in accordance with law and expeditiously. Accordingly, this appeal has been taken up for expeditious disposal.
3. The main plank of challenge raised in this appeal is that the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC) or predecessor-in-title, Executive Engineer, minor Irrigation, though beneficiary and though liable to pay compensation, was not made a party-respondent in the Reference Court and ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:54:56 ::: 4 thus, the impugned judgment and order violated basic principle of rule of law, which is of right of being heard before any order is passed.
4. In the case of Abdul Rasak and ors v. Kerala Water Authority & ors reported in 2002 AIR SCW 477, the Apex Court has held that an entity for whose benefit the land is acquired, is entitled to appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the compensation and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of that case, the order of remand of case by the High Court for decision afresh by Reference Court after affording the parties opportunity of adducing evidence in support of their respective contention was upheld.
5. In the instant case, the present appellant VIDC is successor to the Minor Irrigation Division, Nagpur. The Award of the Land Acquisition Officer shows that the land was acquired after proposal for its acquisition was received from the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Nagpur. Office of the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Nagpur is without any doubt liable to pay compensation. In other words, Office of the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Nagpur is an entity on whom the liability to pay compensation has been fastened. Therefore, by following the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Rasak (supra) as well as the order passed by the Apex Court in the present matter on 20 th March 2017, I hold that the VIDC or its predecessor-in-title is a necessary party and not having been joined so, the impugned judgment and order has to be termed as vitiated by the violation of the principle of natural justice and, therefore, interference by this Court will be justified.
6. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:54:56 ::: 5 order is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Reference Court for decision afresh in accordance with law after giving parties sufficient opportunity of leading evidence as well as cross-examining witnesses including tendering of documentary evidence. The Reference Application be disposed of within three months from the date of appearance of the parties. Parties to appear before the Reference Court on 3.7.2017 at 11.00 am. Parties shall cooperate with the Reference Court for expeditious disposal of the proceedings. Parties are further directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the amount so far withdrawn by the claimants. However, such withdrawal shall be considered by the Reference Court in making the appropriate adjustment or issuing appropriate directions at the time of final disposal of the Reference Application. The balance amount be relegated to the Reference Court which shall be kept in fixed deposit by the trial Court till final disposal of the Reference Application. No order as to costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:54:56 :::