Bombay High Court
Hiralal Motilal Joshi Died ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 March, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 CRA 168 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Civil Revision Application No.168 of 2014
1) Hiralal Motilal Joshi,
Died through legal
representatives
1A) Nathibai W/o Hiralal Joshi,
Died through legal representatives:
1B) Bajranglal s/o Hiralal Joshi,
Age 65 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
1C) Govind s/o Hiralal Joshi,
Age 54 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
2) Shriniwas Motilal Joshi,
Died through legal representatives:
2A) Gopal s/o Shriniwas Joshi,
Age 54 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
2B) Girdhar s/o Shriniwas Joshi,
Age 50 years,
Occupation: Agriculture.
3) Brijlal Madanlal Joshi,
Died through legal
representatives:
3A) Kalawati W/o Brijlal Joshi,
Age 60 years,
Occupation: Household.
3B) Vinay S/o Brijlal Joshi,
Age 33 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:52:08 :::
2 CRA 168 of 2014
3C) Vishal S/o Brijlal Joshi,
Age 30 years,
Occupation: Agriculture.
All residents of Latur,
Taluka & District Latur. .. Applicants.
Versus
* The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur. .. Respondent.
--------
Shri. H.B. Nandagavale, Advocate, holding for Shri. V.G.
Sakolkar, Advocate, for applicants.
Shri. S.D. Kaldate, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent.
--------
CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATE : 21st MARCH 2016
JUDGMENT:
1) Rule, rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
both sides for final disposal by consent.
2) The revision is filed against the judgment and
award of Land Acquisition Reference No.133/1989 which
was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Latur. The reference was filed under section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court
3 CRA 168 of 2014
has dismissed the reference as no oral evidence was given
and no documents were produced to substantiate the
claim that the claimants are entitled to get compensation
at higher rate. Learned counsel for the claimants, present
applicants placed reliance on following two cases :-
(1) 2004 (4) Bom. C.R. 495 (Kawadu Madhav Bansod v.
State of Maharashtra (Nagpur Bench); and,
Civil Revision Application No.123 of 2012 (Balaji
Keshav Aradwad v. The State of Maharashtra)
decided on 29th June 2012 (Aurangabad Bench).
In view of the observations made in these cases this
Court holds that the revision is tenable. This Court further
holds that opportunity needs to be given to the claimants
to lead evidence as under compulsory acquisition the land
is acquired.
3) In the result, the revision is allowed. The
judgment and order of the Reference Court is hereby set
aside and the matter is remanded back to the reference
Court. Parties to appear before the Reference Court on
30-4-2016. The Reference Court to dispose of the matter
expeditiously and in any case within six months from the
4 CRA 168 of 2014
date of receipt of the order. Record is to be immediately
sent to the reference Court. Rule is made absolute in
above terms.
Sd/-
(T.V. NALAWADE, J. )
rsl
