Dhondi Vellappa Patil vs Special Land Acquisition Officer ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 28 Bom

JUDGMENT

D.G. Karnik, J.

1. Heard Mr. More for the petitioner and Smt. Mulekar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent. By consent, taken up for final hearing.

2. The land of the petitioner bearing Gat No. 543 admeasuring 0 Hectares 18 R. situated at village Malatwadi in Kolhapur District was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and an award was passed on 25th April 2000. Notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was received by the petitioner on 20th July 2000. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded the petitioner made an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for reference. In the meanwhile, the petitioner accepted the amount of compensation after lodging an oral protest. The respondent No. 1 however, by an order dated 11th October 2000, declined to make the reference on the ground that the petitioner had accepted the amount without any protest and therefore, the request reference could not be entertained. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Respondent No. 1 declining to make the reference, the petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Application.

3. In Gunvanta Vaiju Patil v. State of Maharashtra (Civil Revision Application No. 1361/01) decided on 27.11.2001, a learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon the earlier judgment of this court in Amol Rambhau Arjun v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2000(4) Mh.L.J. 302, has held that the reference has to be made even when the amount of compensation is accepted by making an oral protest.

4. In paragraph No. 4 of the Civil Revision Application, the petitioner has specifically stated that he had accepted the amount by making an oral protest. The statement is not denied by filing any reply. In the circumstances, the statement has to be accepted. The respondent No. 1 clearly erred in declining to make the reference, as the compensation amount was accepted under an oral protest.

5. It was contended by the learned Asstt. Government Pleader that allowing the revision would not finally dispose of the matter and therefore, the Revision is not maintainable in view of this judgment of this court in Rajabhau Mahadeo Rahate v. Dinkar Shantaram Ingole reported in 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 921. The contention is fallacious. If the revision application is allowed, respondent No. 1 would be required to pass an order making the reference and thus the application under Section 18 would be finally disposed of. What would remain pending thereafter would be the land reference with the District Judge and not the application under Section 18(1) for making the reference.

6. In view of this, Revision Application is allowed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to make the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the competent Court, forthwith.

All concerned to act on a copy of this order authenticated by the court Sheristedar.