Bombay High Court
Keshav Nagnath Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 FA 1241.2006 + CA.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1241 OF 2006
WITH
CA/1643/2010 IN FA/1241/2006
...
Keshav Nagnath Pawar,
age 56 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Naichakur, Tq. Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad. .Appellant..
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Osmanabad.
2. Godawari Marathwada Irrigation,
Development Corporation, Through
It's Executive Engineer Minor
Irrigation Division, Osmanabad
Tq. & Dist Osmanabad. .Respondents.
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr V G Sakolkar
AGP for Respondent 1 : Mr K N Lokhande
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr S S Thombre
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
Dated: April 04, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Mr. Mukhedkar, the learned counsel, submits that
since Advocate Mr. Sakolkar is appearing for the
appellant, his appearance may be discharged.
Appearance of Advocate Mr. Mukhedkar stands
2 FA 1241.2006 + CA.odt
discharged.
2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award
passed in L.A.R No.475/2004 with connected matters as
mentioned therein, the original claimant in L.A.R
No.475/2004 has preferred this appeal for enhancement
of the compensation. The learned Civil Judge S.D.
Omerga, by its impugned judgment and award dated
15.7.2006 awarded the enhanced compensation to the
claimants in L.A.R No.475/2004 @ Rs.29,250/- per
hector. The learned Civil Judge S.D., Omerga has
awarded the total compensation of Rs.49,140/-. Being
aggrieved by the same, the original claimant in L.A.R
No.475/2004 preferred this appeal for enhancement of
compensation.
3. Before entering into the merits of the case, the
learned counsel for respondent no.2-acquiring body
submits that, the Acquiring Body was not impleaded as
party in the original proceeding and in view of the
authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in
case of Abdul Rasak and others Vs. Kerala Water
3 FA 1241.2006 + CA.odt
Authority and others, reported in (2002) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 228, the matter needs to be remanded to
the Reference Court with a directions to implead the
respondent no.2 Acquiring Body as party to the
reference and then dispose of the land Acquisition
Reference in accordance with law.
3. Learned ig counsel appearing for the
appellant/original claimant has also not disputed this
legal position.
4. I have also heard the learned AGP for the
respondent no.1 State.
5. The Supreme Court by relying upon the case in
U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi,
reported in (1995) 2 SCC page 326, in a case Abdul
Rasak and others (supra), in paragraph No.11 has made
following observations :-
"11. Keeping in view the fact that the Constitution Bench
judgment of this Court was delivered during the pendency of
appeals before the High Court and the manner in which
K.W.A. also came to be constituted after commencement of
4 FA 1241.2006 + CA.odt
land acquisition proceedings and the delay which has
already taken place in the conclusion of the proceedings for
finalizing compensation which delay is not attributable to
the claimants though, we maintain the order of remand
made by the High Court but make the following directions :
1. The Kerala Water Authority shall be deemed to have been
brought on record in the reference cases as defendant. The
cause title of the reference cases shall be amended
accordingly. The K.W.A. may file its written statement to the
claim petition filed by the claimants;
2. The Civil Court shall expeditiously proceed to try the
reference cases in compliance with the order of remand
made by the High Court;
3. The statement of the witnesses already recorded on behalf
of the claimants need not be recorded afresh;
4. The Kerala Water Authority shall be allowed an opportunity
of cross- examining the witnesses which have already been
examined. However, such of the witnesses as are not
available, and, therefore, cannot be called before the
Court, their statements shall not be excluded from
consideration and shall be read in evidence;
5. The claimants may adduce such other evidence as they may
propose to do and both the State of Kerala and Kerala Water
Authority shall have the liberty of cross-examining such
witnesses who are now examined by the claimants;
6. The Kerala Water Authority shall have the liberty of
adducing such evidence as it may propose to do."
5 FA 1241.2006 + CA.odt
6. In view of this, following order is passed.
O R D E R
I. First appeal is hereby partly allowed.
II. The impugned Judgment and Award dated
15.7.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge
S.D. Omerga in L.A.R.No.475/2004 Keshav
Nagnath Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra is
hereby quashed and set aside.
III.
Matter is remanded to the Reference Court with
the following directions:-
The Respondent Acquiring Body 'Godawari
Marathwada Irrigation' shall be deemed to
have been brought on record in the
Reference case as the respondent. The
cause title of the Reference Case shall be
amended accordingly.
IV The Respondent Acquiring Body 'Godawari
Marathwada Irrigation' is permitted to file its
written statement to the claim petition.
V. The learned Civil Judge S.D., Omerga Shall
dispose of the Reference case, as expeditiously
as possible, preferably within a period of SIX
MONTHS from the date of this order.
6 FA 1241.2006 + CA.odt
VI. The evidence (if any) recorded during the
original trial shall, subject to all just exception
be read in evidence during the trial after
remand.
VII. The Respondent Acquiring Body 'Godawari
Marathwada Irrigation' if submits the written
statement before the Reference Court, the
claimant as well as the respondent No.1 State
are hereby permitted to lead the additional
evidence before the Reference Court. Needless
to say that the Respondent Acquiring Body
'Godawari Marathwada Irrigation' is at liberty
to lead oral as well as documentary evidence in
support of its case as per the pleadings.
VIII. First Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Pending civil application also stands disposed
of.
( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
