Bombay High Court
Executive Engineer (V.I.D.C.), ... vs Shri Suresh S/O Punjabrao Raut And ... on 22 April, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
1 fa.780.15.jud
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.780 OF 2015
Appellant : Executive Engineer (V.I.D.C.),
Medium Project Division,
Nagpur.
-- Versus --
Respondents
: 1] Shri Suresh s/o Punjabrao Raut,
Aged about 44 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Wai, Tahsil Katol, Dist. Nagpur.
2] Shri Ramesh s/o Punjabrao Raut,
Aged about 40 years, Occu. Agriculturist/Service,
R/o Mahalaxmi Nagar, Nagpur.
3] Shri Diwakar s/o Punjabrao Raut,
Aged about 36 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Wai, Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur.
4] Sau. Shakuntalabai w/o Sudamrao Bhile,
Aged about 42 years, Occu. Housewife,
R/o Mahalaxmi Nagar, Nagpur.
5] Smt. Anita wd/o Satisrao Kine,
Aged about 30 years, Occu. Housewife,
R/o Barsinghi, Tahsil Narkhed, District Nagpur.
6] The Collector, Nagpur,
District Nagpur,
Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jam Nadi Prakalpa (Ridhora) at Nagpur.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri V.G. Palshikar, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Ms. N.P. Mehta, A.G.P. for respondent No.6.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:20:35 :::
2 fa.780.15.jud
C ORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 22
nd APRIL, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
01] The present appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the said Act') takes exception to the
judgment of the Reference Court dated 30/04/2011 in L.A.C. No.8/1992.
02] The lands of respondent Nos.1 to 5 were acquired by initiating
proceedings under Section 4 of the said Act. The award came to be passed
on 30/03/1991. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation that was
granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants filed reference under
Section 18 of the said act. By the impugned judgment dated 30/04/2011,
the claim for reference was partly allowed and the amount of compensation
was enhanced. Being aggrieved, the acquiring body has filed the present
appeal.
03] Shri V.G. Palshikar, the learned Counsel for the appellant
submitted that by an order passed below Exh.27 on 16/08/2001, the
appellant had been added as a party in the reference proceedings. Since
13/10/2009, the proceedings were adjourned from time to time as the
records of the land acquisition proceedings were awaited. On 26/04/2011,
3 fa.780.15.jud
the proceedings were adjourned to 30/04/2011 for awaiting aforesaid
records. However, on 30/04/2011, the learned Counsel for the claimants
was heard and the judgment came to be delivered on the same day. He
submitted that without grant of proper opportunity, the reference Court
has decided the proceedings. It was, therefore, submitted that the
adjudication by the reference Court on merits is without hearing the parties
before the reference Court. On that ground, it was submitted that the
impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
04] Shri R.M. Bhangde, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1
to 5 supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the
enhancement in the amount of compensation was granted after considering
the entire evidence on record including the report of the valuer as well as
joint measurement report. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned
order was not liable to be set aside.
Ms. N.P. Mehta, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appeared for respondent No.6. With the assistance of the learned Counsel
for the parties, I have perused the records of the case and the impugned
judgment. The following point arises for consideration in the appeal is,
Whether the reference Court has decided the proceedings after
granting due opportunity to the parties?
4 fa.780.15.jud
05] As per the Roznama of L.A.C. No.8/1992, it can be seen that
on 16/08/2001, the present appellant had filed an application under Order
I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for being added as a
party to the proceedings. The claimants did not raise any objection to the
same and hence, the application was allowed on the same day. Thereafter,
the proceedings were adjourned from time to time for obtaining the records
of the acquisition proceedings. On 26/04/2011, it was noted in the
Roznama that the records were still awaited and the case was adjourned to
30/04/2011. On 30/04/2011, the Counsel for the claimants was heard
and by treating the non-applicants therein absent, the judgment was
delivered.
06] From the aforesaid, it is clear that when the case was
adjourned for awaiting the records of the acquisition proceedings, the
learned Counsel for the claimants was heard and the proceedings were
decided. The date on which the proceedings were decided was not the
date for hearing of the proceedings. It can, therefore, be said that the
proceedings have been decided without grant of the opportunity to the
appellant as well as the respondent No.6. On this count, the impugned
judgment of the reference Court is liable to be set aside. The point as
framed is answered by holding that the reference proceedings have been
5 fa.780.15.jud
decided without grant of opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
07] In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed :
i. The judgment dated 30/04/2011 in L.A.C. No.8/1992 is set
aside.
ii.
The proceedings are remanded to the reference Court for fresh
consideration for being decided on merits. The proceedings
shall commence from the stage of recording of evidence of the
parties.
iii. The parties shall appear before the reference Court on
08/06/2016. As the proceedings are of the year 1992, the
same shall be decided expeditiously and preferably by the end
of October, 2016. It is made clear that this Court has not
examined the correctness of the findings recorded in the
judgment dated 30/04/2011.
iv. The first appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE
*sdw
