Vishwanth S/O Hanumant Khajure vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5071 Bom

                                          {1}                              cra87-16

     drp
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                         
                                                 
               CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.87 OF 2016


     Vishwanath s/o Hanumant Khajure                                APPLICANT




                                                
     Age - 76 years, Occ - Agriculture
     R/o Aloor, Taluka - Omerga,
     District - Osmanabad




                                        
              VERSUS


     1.
                             
              The State of Maharashtra,                        RESPONDENTS
              Through the Collector,
                            
              Osmanabad

     2.       The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
              Krishna Khore, Osmanabad
      


     3.       The Executive Engineer,
   



              Irrigation Project Strengthening Division,
              Omerga, District - Osmanabad

                                    .......

Mr. Santosh N. Patne, Advocate for the applicant

Mr. A. P. Basarkar, AGP for respondent - State .......

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

DATE : 30th AUGUST, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

consent of learned advocates for the appearing parties.

{2} cra87-16

2. The applicant, who is 76 years old and an agriculturist

hailing from a remote area in Omerga taluka, is before this court

aggrieved by dismissal of his Land Acquisition Reference filed

way back in 2005 seeking enhancement of compensation, due to

non adducing of evidence.

3. It transpires that delay in filing present civil revision

application has already been condoned under the orders of this

court dated 20th June, 2016 in Civil Application No.3168 of 2016.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant points out, not only

that the applicant is an agriculturist having limited literacy level

and that he is an old person, the place where he is residing is a

remote place, access to which is not easily available. In the

circumstances, due to variety of circumstances, as referred to

above, due to old age, literary level, the applicant lost contact

with advocate, who was prosecuting the land acquisition

reference, nor any communication had reached at his place. In

the circumstances, the order came to be passed. Non adducing

of evidence under the circumstances, had never been intentional

nor deliberate.

{3} cra87-16

5. Learned advocate, further on instructions, states that the

applicant would not claim benefit of interest, if compensation is

enhanced, from 8th August, 2012 i.e. the date of decision in the

Land Acquisition Reference to the date of its restoration.

6. Learned advocate for the applicant purports to refer to a

decision of this court dated 14 th December, 2015 in Civil Revision

Application No.296 of 2015, which he contends to be passed

under similar circumstances, wherein this court has treated the

matter with leniency, particularly in view of the fact that the

applicant had lost his source of livelihood under the land

acquisition proceedings. He, as such, requests for similar

treatment being given to the applicant.

7. Learned AGP, however, resists the request and submits

that in the first place, the delay, though was inordinate, has

been condoned and the reasons which have been given seeking

leniency, would not be the reasons which deserve any

consideration. Learned AGP further states that the application

does not reflect as to what sort of evidence is in possession of

the applicant. He, as such, requests to dismiss the civil revision

application.

{4} cra87-16

8. Be that as it may, since it appears that the prosecution of

Land Acquisition Reference has been going on since 2005 to

2012, looking at the age of the applicant, it is difficult to

consider that the omission to adduce evidence during the

prosecution of the land acquisition reference proceedings can be

said to be deliberate or for that matter any benefit would be

derived by the applicant, especially in view of the statement is

being made on behalf of the applicant that he would not claim

benefit of interest if compensation is enhanced, for the period

from decision in the land acquisition reference till its restoration

and in the face of situation, wherein although the reasons for

consideration are being resisted on behalf of the respondent-

State, yet veracity of the contentions cannot be said to have

been in any way doubted. In the circumstances, the civil revision

application deserves to be allowed.

9. In view of aforesaid, the civil revision application stands

allowed on the condition that the applicant shall deposit costs of

Rs.5000/- in this court within a period of a fortnight for

withdrawal by Government Pleader's office. Rule is made

absolute in terms of prayer clause "C". The applicant shall

adduce evidence as early as possible and the land acquisition

reference No.125 of 2008 be disposed of expeditiously,

{5} cra87-16

preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt

of writ of this order by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, . It

is expected that on this occasion the applicant will co-operate

with the court.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

drp/cra87-16