Bombay High Court

Ramchandra Vithoba Hande vs 2 The Special Land Acquisition ... on 14 October, 2010

Bench: S. S. Shinde

                                       1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                        
                APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                
              CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 89 OF 2004



     1   Ramchandra Vithoba Hande,




                                               
         Age 62 years, Occ. Agriculture,

     2   Vishwanath Gangadhar Walve,
         Age 60 years, Occ. Agriculture,




                                   
     3   Kashinath Gangadhar Walve,
         Age 65 years, Occ. Agriculture,
                    
     4   Ramkrushna Gangadhar Walve,
         Age 67 years, Occ. Agriculture,
                   
     5   Maruti Gangadhar Walve,
         Age 60 years, Occ. Agriculture,

     6   Ramnath Rahama Bhalke,
      

         Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture,

     7   Bhagwat Rakhama Bhalke,
   



         Age 55 years, Occ. Agriculture,

     8   Gajanan Bhau Walve,
         Age 60 years, Occ. Agriculture,





     9   Bhaskar Dada Bhalke,
         Age 34 years, Occ. Agriculture,

         All R/o. Mirjapur, Tq. Sangamner
         District Ahmednagar                             ...Petitioners





               Versus

     1   The State of Maharashtra and others
         through its Collector, Ahmednagar
         (Copy to be served on G.P.
         High Court of Judicature of Bombay
         Bench at Aurangabad)

     2   The Special Land Acquisition Officer
         No.3, Ahmednagar,
         District Ahmednagar                             ...Respondents



                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:32:25 :::
                                           2


                                         .....




                                                                              
     Mr. K.S. Bhore, advocate for the petitioners




                                                     
     Mrs. Vaishali A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent No.

                                         .....

                                                 CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J.

                                                 DATED:     14TH OCTOBER, 2010


     ORAL JUDGMENT :-

This Revision application is filed being aggrieved by the order

passed by Special Acquisition Officer thereby rejecting the reference

filed by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on

the ground that the References are not filed within the period of

limitation.

2 The lands belonging to the petitioners have been acquired by

the respondent authorities on 13.11.2000 for the public purpose of

construction of Urdhav Pravara right canal and they have passed the

award under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act. The notices

under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act have been issued to

the petitioners on 13.10.2003 and the compensations were paid to the

them on 10.12.2003. On 9.12.2003, the petitioners have received the

copy of contents of the award and on the very same day the petitioner

Nos. 1 to 8 have filed References under Section 18 and the petitioner

No.9 has filed the Reference on 6.2.2004. The Land Acquisition

Officer on 9.2.2004 has rejected the References filed by the petitioners

under Section 18 on the ground that the said References are not within

a period of limitation. Hence, this revision application.

3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the

notices have been received by the petitioners under Section 12(2) on

27.10.2003 and on 9.12.2003 the petitioners received the copy of

contents of the award and on the very same day the petitioner Nos. 1

to 8 have filed References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition

Act and the petitioner No.9 has filed the Reference on 6.2.2004.

According to the counsel for the petitioners, since they have received

copy of contents of the award on 9.12.2003, the Reference filed by

them was well within limitation, and therefore, the Special land

Acquisition Officer should not have rejected the Reference. In support

of his contention he invited my attention to the documents placed on

record and submitted that the concerned Talathi has submitted his

report on 30.10.2003, which indicates that though notices were issued

on 13.10.2003, the same have been served on the petitioners on

27.10.2003. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 have received the copy of

contents of award on 9.12.2003. Therefore, immediately thereafter on

9.12.2003 Reference has been filed under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act by the petitioner Nos.1 to 8 and the petitioner No.9 has

filed the reference on 6.2.2004. Therefore, the References are not

barred by limitation. Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my

attention to Exh.1 to the revision application and also invited my

attention to the fact that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 have received the

notices on 27.10.2003 and they have received the copy of contents of

award on 9.12.2003. Learned counsel invited my attention to the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Das and others

Vs. State of UP and Ors. Reported in 2010 STPL(Web) 149 SC, in

which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in absence of any

evidence placed by the Collector to show the knowledge on the part of

the claimants/appellants, the claim of the appellants that they become

aware that the award was made only when the notice was tendered to

them and they become aware of the contents of the award on the

subsequent dates has to be accepted.

In short, in the present case though the notices are issued by

the Land Acquisition Officer on 13.10.2003, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8

have received it on 27.10.2010 and they received the copy of contents

of award on 9.12.2003, and from the said date the limitation, started

and the petitioners were taken steps to file their reference within

limitation and accordingly they have filed the references on 9.12.2003

on which date they received the contents of the award. In so far as the

petitioner No.9 is concerned, he has filed the reference on 6.2.2004.

4 Learned A.G.P vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners

and submitted that since the reference was not within limitation, the

Special Land Acquisition has rightly rejected the same therefore, this

Court may not interfere in the order passed by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer.

5 I have given due consideration to the rival submissions

advanced by the counsel for the parties. I have also perused the

contents in the revision application and the annexures thereto. There

is no reply filed by the respondents to this revision application and in

that sense the pleadings in the Revision Application remained

uncontroverted. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have received

the copy of contention of award on 9.12.2003 and on the same day

they have filed the Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition

Act and in so far as petitioner No.9 is concerned he had filed the said

Reference on 6.2.2004. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of

Bhagwan Das and others (supra) in para 14 held thus;-

"A vague endorsement that the person who had to serve the notice went to village and informed the

farmers, is not the same as notice being specifically tendered to the person concerned. The endorsement- cum-report does not mention or identify the farmers to whom he spoke or which of them refused to put their signatures. In the absence of any evidence placed by the Collector to show knowledge on the part of the appellants, the claim of the appellants that they became aware that an award was made only when the notice

dated 25.10.2007 was tendered to them and they became aware of the contents of the award only on

16.11.2007 has to be accepted. In the circumstances,

the date of the award should be taken as 16.11.2007. The application filed on 16.11.2007 was therefore, in time. The land 18 Acquisition Collector ought to have

entertained the application seeking reference. The High court, instead of directing the Collector to make a reference, wrongly rejected the writ petition on the ground

that an appeal is maintainable under section 54 of the Act and also wrongly rejected the review petition on the

ground that they could have made an application for condonation of delay before the Land Acquisition

Collector."

6 Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners

have received copy of the contents of the award on 9.12.2003 and on

the very same day they have filed the reference under Section, the

reference filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 was within the period of

limitation. This view is fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das and others (Supra).

7 However, in case of petitioner No.9, though he has received the

copy of contents of award on 9.12.2003, the reference was filed by him

on 6.2.2004 and the same was time barred. Therefore, the Special

Land Acquisition Officer has rightly rejected the same reference of

petitioner No.9.

8 In the result, Civil Revision Application succeeds in so far as the