Bombay High Court
Sanjay S/O Damodhar Ingole vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 21 March, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
cra105.15.J.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.105 OF 2015
Sanjay s/o Damodhar Ingole
Aged 34 years,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Laygawhan, Tq. Digras,
District Yavatmal. ....... APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Yavatmal.
2] The Collector, Yavatmal,
Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
3] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Benefited Zone, Arunavati Project,
Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
4] The Executive Engineer,
Arunavati Project, Digras,
Dist. Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.V. Ingole, Advocate for Appellant.
Ms. N.P. Mehta, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3.
Shri S.S. Godbole, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
st MARCH, 2016.
DATE: 21
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Admit.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives
service of notice.
cra105.15.J.odt 2/3
2] Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing
for the parties.
3] The Reference Court has dismissed the reference in Land
Acquisition Case No.206 of 2004, on the ground that the claimant has
failed to lead evidence. This order dated 16.12.2014 is the subject-matter
of challenge in this revision by the claimant.
4]
Relying upon the decision of this Court in Kawadu Madhav
Bansod vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2004(2) Mh.L.J.
503, the learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the Court
should not have dismissed the reference without providing an
opportunity to the claimant to adduce the evidence. The claimant was
absent due to ill health, and the copy of the certificate is annexed.
In view of this, the order impugned will have to be quashed and set aside
with an order of remand, so as to provide an opportunity to the claimant
to lead evidence.
5] In the result, the revision is allowed. The order dated
16.12.2014 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case
No.206 of 2004, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted
back to the Reference Court to decide it on its own merits by permitting
the claimant to lead evidence. The learned counsel for the claimant
cra105.15.J.odt 3/3
submits that within a period of 15 days, the claimant shall produce
witnesses, and the documentary evidence. The statement is accepted.
The parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court
on 18.04.2016. The Reference Court to decide the matter within a period
of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before it.
The applicant to keep the witnesses ready for examination and
cross-examination; failing which costs of Rs.5000/- for failure to appear
on each day shall be imposed by the Reference Court. The appellant to
pay further costs of Rs.5000/- to the respondent no.1 within a period of
two weeks from the date of first appearance of the parties. It shall be
open for the respondents to urge that the appellant shall not be entitled
to interest because the appellant has deliberately failed to lead evidence
and sought the adjournments.
JUDGE
NSN
