Bombay High Court
Shivaji Rajaram Telang vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 1 April, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA NO. 1736/2015 & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1736 OF 2015
Shivaji S/o Rajaram Telang
Age 46 years, Occu. Agril,
R/o Jakekur, Tq. Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad. ...APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through, the District Collector,
Osmanabad.
2. The Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation
through its Regional Officer,
M.I.D.C. Latur. ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1738 OF 2015
Chandrakant S/o Rajaram Telang,
Age 58 yrs. Occ. Agril.
R/o Jakekur, Tq. Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad. ...APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through, the District Collector,
Osmanabad.
2. The Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation
through its Regional Officer,
M.I.D.C. Latur. ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1735 OF 2015
Baswant S/o Rajaram Telang
Age 62 yrs. Occ. Agril.
R/o Jakekur, Tq. Omerga,
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:36:59 :::
2 FA NO. 1736/2015 & Ors.
Dist. Osmanabad. ...APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through, the Secretary of
Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The District Collector,
Osmanabad.
3. The Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation
through its Regional Officer,
M.I.D.C. Latur. ig ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1737 OF 2015
Shankar S/o Rajaram Telang,
Age 53 yrs. Occ. Agril.
R/o Jakekur, Tq. Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad. ...APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through, the District Collector,
Osmanabad.
2. The Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation
through its Regional Officer,
M.I.D.C. Latur. ...RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Claimant)
...
Mr. P.G.Sontakke, Advocate, for appellants;
Mr. R.B.Bagul, AGP for Respondent/State;
Mr. S.B.Bhosale, Advocate for Respondent No.2
-----
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:36:59 :::
3 FA NO. 1736/2015 & Ors.
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
st
DATE :
1 April,2016.
JUDGMENT:
1) Since all these four appeals are arising
out of the common Judgment and Award passed by
the Civil Judge, Senior Division on 17th November,
2008 in LAR No.350/2005 with connected matters, I
deem it appropriate to decide these appeals by a
common reasoning.
2) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for
the respective parties. Perused the impugned
Judgment and Award. The learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Omerga has dismissed all the
four Land Acquisition References by recording
following reasons in Para 15 of the judgment, -
"15. As the claimants did not
adduce any oral evidence nor filed
any documentary evidence to support
their case to get enhanced
compensation amount, I am of the
opinion that whatever the amount of
compensation granted to acquired
4 FA NO. 1736/2015 & Ors.
land is proper and reasonable
according to the market value,
therefore, I reject the contention
of claimants by rejecting all the
claim Reference petitions."
3) The reason for which the learned
Reference Court has rejected the References is
apparently unsustainable. Time and again, this
Court has held that the Land Acquisition
Reference cannot be dismissed on the ground that
the petitioner did not adduce any evidence or
failed to adduce any evidence. This Court, in
the case of Kawadu Madhav Bansod Vs. the State of
Maharashtra and Anr. - 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 503, in
Para 7 thereof has observed thus, -
"7. It is true that the
adjudication made by the Civil Court
on the reference has to be regarded
as an award, whether an enhanced
compensation is given or not. But in
that event the Court should consider
the material on record, even if the
party is absent and has failed to
adduce evidence. Unless the material
on record is considered the order
5 FA NO. 1736/2015 & Ors.
cannot be said to be an
adjudication. In the instant case
the ground given for the dismissal
of reference by the Civil Court is
that the applicant (present revision
petitioner) remained absent and did
not adduce any evidence to show that
a proper compensation was not paid
to him and that he is entitled to
more compensation than paid. The
above order clearly shows that the
reference was dismissed only for the
reason of failure of the applicant
(present revision petitioner) to
adduce evidence. Thus the material
on record is not considered by the
Civil Court, It is not considered as
to how the compensation awarded by
the Land Acquisition Officer was
correct. So the order cannot be
taken to be an adjudication and
therefore the same cannot be treated
to be an award. The order passed by
the Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Yavatmal also cannot be treated to
be a dismissal of the reference in
default. The learned counsel for
revision petitioner submitted that
the case could not be dismissed in
6 FA NO. 1736/2015 & Ors.
default also".
4) In view of the observations made by this
Court, as above, the court below should not have
rejected the Reference on the ground of failure
of the claimants to adduce evidence.
5) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Khajan Singh Vs. Union of India - 2002 (2)
Mh.L.J. 259 has held that Sections 18 and 26 of
the Act make it clear that the civil court has to
pass an Award in answer to the Reference made by
the Collector under Section 18 of the Act and if
any party, to whom notice has been served by the
Civil Court, did not participate in the inquiry,
it would only be at his risk. It is further
observed that Reference under Section 18 of the
Act cannot be dismissed for default.
6) In the instant matters, while rejecting
the Reference applications under Section 18 of
the Act, though the Reference Court has not used
the words "dismissed in default" observations in
7 FA NO. 1736/2015 & Ors.
para 15 of the impugned judgment impliedly mean
that the Reference applications are dismissed in
default. The Reference Court has not made any
discussion or provided any reason as to how the
amount of compensation determined by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer is proper and reasonable
and is the real market value of the lands under
acquisition.
7) In the above circumstances, in view of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in
the case of Khazan Singh (cited supra) and by
this Court in the case of Kawadu Madhav Bansod
(cited supra), the impugned Judgment and Award
cannot be sustained. In the similar fact
situation this Court in the case of Appasaheb
Mohanrao Chede Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. -
2012(1) Bom.C.R. 458 and also in the case of
Arjun Shankar Waghmare and Anr. vs. State of
Maharashtra - 2011 (2) Bom.C.R. 866, deemed it
proper to remit back the matters to the Reference
Court for their decision on merits by setting
8 FA NO. 1736/2015 & Ors.
aside the Awards impugned in the said petitions.
The same course needs to be followed in the
instant matters.
8) During the course of his arguments it
was urged by the learned AGP that in case the
matters are remitted back to the Reference Court
for their decision on merits, it may be
specifically observed that the claimants shall
not be entitled to claim interest of the
intervening period since for years together the
claimants did not proceed with the Reference
Applications and failed to adduce evidence on
their behalf. The learned AGP is fully justified
in making such submission. Needless to state
that the Reference Court will definitely take
into account the circumstances and decide whether
to award interest to the claimants of the entire
period or otherwise, if it reaches to the
conclusion that the hearing of the Reference
applications was prolonged only at the instance
of and because of the lapses on the part of the
9 FA NO. 1736/2015 & Ors.
claimants and will take appropriate decision on
the said issue while passing the final Award.
9) Learned Counsel appearing for the
appellants makes a statement that on the first
date of hearing, which may be fixed by the
Reference Court, the appellants/claimants will
file all necessary documents including the
relevant sale instances and would complete the
evidence within three months from the first date
10) For the reasons stated above, I pass the
following order, -
ORDER
i) The common impugned Judgment and Award
dated 17th November, 2008 in L.A.R.Nos.380/2005;
382/2005; 385/2005 & 245/2005 passed by Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, stands quashed
and set aside;
ii) The matter is remanded back to the
learned Reference Court for its disposal afresh
in accordance with law;
10 FA NO. 1736/2015 & Ors.
iii) The parties are directed to appear
before the learned Reference Court on 8th June,
2016 and shall promptly adduce evidence in
support of their contentions raised in the
Reference or in the Written Statement, as the
case may be;
iv) The Reference Court by recording
necessary evidence and hearing the parties shall
decide the ig Reference Applications as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a
period of nine months thereafter;
v) Registry to send back the Record and
proceedings to the Reference Court forthwith;
11) The First Appeals stand partly allowed
in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
bdv/
fldr 20.4.16
