Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Bhujanga Sarangdhar Sarkate
2016 Latest Caselaw 2049 Bom

                                                                                         fa1148.15
                                                   1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                                        
                               NAGPUR.

                       FIRST   APPEAL     NO.    1148    OF     2015




                                                                
                                          WITH
                     CIVIL  APPLICATION (CAO) NO.  838  OF  2016




                                                               
    Vidarbha Irrigation Development
    Corporation through its Executive
    Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division
    Washim, Distt. Washim.                                                   APPELLANT.




                                                
                               ig               VERSUS


    1] Bhujanga Sarangdhar Sarkate
                             
    aged 48 yrs., Occu. Service and
    Cultivator. 

    2] Uttam Sarangdhar Sarkate,
    aged 43 yrs. Occu. Agriculture
      


    R/o Haral Tq. Risod, Distt.
    Washim. 
   



    3] State of Maharashtra through
    Collector, Washim. 





    4] Special Land Acquisition 
    Officer, No. 2, Wahim.                                                   RESPONDENTS.

Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S. A. Marathe, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 & 2.

Ms. N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 3 & 4.

                              CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                               
                                      Dated    :   APRIL  29, 2016.

    ORAL JUDGMENT: 

In view of the short issue involved the appeal is heard finally with

fa1148.15

the consent of counsel for the parties.

2] Land admeasuring 2 H. 74 R which was owned by the respondent

nos. 1 and 2 was the subject matter of acquisition in proceedings under the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act). The Land Acquisition

Officer passed his award on 02.06.2000 and granted compensation at the

rate of Rs. 31,000/- per hectare. Being aggrieved the claimants filed

reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court partly

enhanced the amount of compensation. Being aggrieved the acquiring body

has filed the present application.

3] Shri V. G. Palshikar, the learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that before the Reference Court the acquiring body was not joined

as a party due to which it could not contest the proceedings. Relying upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Neyvely Lignite Corpn.

Ltd. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and others AIR

1996 Supreme Court 1004, it was submitted that the proceedings deserve to

be remanded to the Reference Court for grant of opportunity to the acquiring

body to contest the proceedings. Without prejudice, it is submitted that

amount of compensation granted is at higher side.

Aforesaid submissions are opposed by Shri S. A. Marathe, the

learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. It is submitted that the interests

of the acquiring body were duly represented by the State of Maharashtra

through the Collector and therefore it was not necessary to remand the

proceedings. It is submitted that the amount of compensation granted is

fa1148.15

appropriate not requiring any interference.

Ms. N. P. Mehta, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appears for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

4] The following point arises for consideration:

Whether the proceedings deserve to be remanded in view of the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd.

(supra)?

5] Perusal of the proceedings in Land Acquisition Case No. 98 of

2002 indicate that only the State of Maharashtra through its Collector and

the Special Land Acquisition Officer had been impleaded. The appellant

which is acquiring body was not joined as a party to the proceedings.

Considering the law laid down in M/s Neyvely Lignite (supra) it would be

necessary to remand the proceedings to the Reference Court with a direction

to the claimants to implead the present appellant as a party to the

proceedings. The point as framed is answered by holding that it would be

necessary to remand the proceedings to the Reference Court.

6] Though it is a fact that the appellant was not impleaded as a

party, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 would be entitled to receive some amount

of compensation as their lands have been acquired. The appellant has

deposited an amount of Rs. 16,83,910/- in the present appeal. In the facts of

the case the respondent nos. 1 and 2 would be permitted to withdraw an

amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- each without prejudice to the rights and

contentions of the parties. Hence the following order is passed:

fa1148.15

1] The judgment dated 05.04.2010 in Land Acquisition Case No.

98 of 2002 is set aside. The proceedings are remanded to the court of

learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim for being decided a fresh.

2] The claimants shall implead the Vidarbha Irrigation

Development Corporation through its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation

Division, Washim, District Washim as party to the proceedings by amending

the reference petition. The claimants would be at liberty to amend their

pleadings. The present appellant shall file its Written Statement within a

period of 10 weeks from today before the Reference Court. Both the parties

would be at liberty to prosecute the proceedings in accordance with law.

3] Out of the amount deposited by the appellant, an amount of

Rs. 4,00,000/- each shall be paid to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on

furnishing an undertaking that in case the enhancement granted earlier is

ultimately reduced then the said amount shall be repaid with interest at such

rate the Court may direct. The balance amount shall be transferred to the

Reference Court for being invested. The aforesaid withdrawal would be

without prejudice to the rights of the parties and subject to final outcome of

the reference. The first appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs.

JUDGE

svk

fa1148.15