Bombay High Court
Anjali Shridhar Gude vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 October, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 915 fa 3772.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3772 OF 2016
Minaxi d/o Lingram Dudde
Age. Major, Occ. Agril/Household,
R/o Kamkheda, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigaton Division at Latur
ig ... Respondents
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3765 OF 2016
Prayagbai w/o Eknath Dudde (died)
Through Lrs.
Dhondiba s/o Eknath Dudde
Age. 68 yrs. Occ. Agril,
R/o Kamkheda, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigaton Division at Latur. ... Respondents
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3766 OF 2016
Surajkanya Vishnudas Bajaj,
Age. 44 yrs, Occ. Agril,
R/o Kamkheda, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigaton Division at Latur ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:25:30 :::
2 915 fa 3772.16.odt
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3767 OF 2016
Bhagirthibai w/o Harichandra Haridas,
Age. 70 yrs, Occ. Agril. Household,
R/o Kamkheda, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigaton Division at Latur ... Respondents
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3768 OF 2016
Janabai w/o Bhanudas Walekar,
Age. Major, Occ. Agril. Household,
R/o Pangaon (Kamkheda), Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigaton Division at Latur ... Respondents
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3769 OF 2016
Jagannath s/o Vithal Bhinge (died)
Through Lrs.
Kalubai w/o Jagannath Bhinge
Age. 80 yrs, Occ. Agril.,
R/o Kamkheda, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigaton Division at Latur ... Respondents
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3770 OF 2016
Anjali d/o Shridhar Gude,
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:25:30 :::
3 915 fa 3772.16.odt
Age. Major, Occ. Agril. Household,
R/o Pangaon (Kamkheda), Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigaton Division at Latur ... Respondents
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3771 OF 2016
Mathurabai w/o Ganpati Barule,
Age. Major, Occ. Agril. Household,
R/o Kamkheda, Tq. Renapur,
1.
Dist. Latur.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
... Appellant
Through the Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigaton Division at Latur ... Respondents
----
Mr. Sontakke Gajanan K. Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. G.O. Wattamwar, AGP for respondent-state.
----
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATE : 15-10-2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Since all these eight appeals are arising out of the
common judgment and award passed by the 3 rd Joint Civil Judge
Senior Division, Latur on 10.02.2012 in L.A.R. Nos. 706/2000,
707/2000, 708/2000, 709/2000, 710/2000, 712/2000, 713/2000
and 714/2000. I deem it appropriate to decide these appeals by
common judgment.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and the learned A.G.P. appearing for the state. Perused the
4 915 fa 3772.16.odt
impugned judgment and award. The reference court has dismissed
all the aforesaid references vide impugned judgment mainly on the
ground that the claimants did not adduce any evidence in support
of their claim.
3. The reason which has been assigned by the learned
reference court while dismissing the reference applications is
apparently unsustainable. Time and again, this court has held that,
the land acquisition references cannot be rejected or dismissed on
the ground that the petitioner or the claimant did not adduce any
evidence in support of his claim. This court in the case of Kawadu
Madhav Bansod and V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
reported in 2004 (02) Mh.L.J. 503 in para 7 thereof has observed
thus:
7. It is true that the adjudication made by the Civil Court on the
reference has to be regarded as an award, whether an enhanced
compensation is given or not. But in that event the Court should
consider the material on record, even if the party is absent and has
failed to adduce evidence. Unless the material on record is considered
the order cannot be said to be an adjudication. In the instant case the
ground given for the dismissal of reference by the Civil Court is that
the applicant (present revision petitioner) remained absent and did not
adduce any evidence to show that a proper compensation was not paid
to him and that he is entitled to more compensation than paid. The
above order clearly shows that the reference was dismissed only for the
reason of failure of the applicant (present revision petitioner) to adduce
evidence. Thus the material on record is not considered by the Civil
Court. It is not considered as to how the compensation awarded by the
Land Acquisition Officer was correct. So the order cannot be taken to
be an adjudication and therefore the same cannot be treated to be an
award. The order passed by the Civil judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal
also cannot be treated to be a dismissal of the reference in default. The
learned Counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the case could
not be dismissed in default also.
4. In view of the observations made by this court as
5 915 fa 3772.16.odt
above, the court below should not have rejected the reference
applications on the ground of failure of the claimants to adduce
evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khajan Singh Vs.
Union of India reported in 2002 (2) MLJ 259 has held that
Sections 18 and 26 of the Act make it clear that the civil court has
to pass an award in answer to the Reference made by the Collector
under Section 18 of the Act and if any party, to whom notice has
been served by the Civil Court, did not participate in the inquiry, it
would be only be at his risk. It is further observed that Reference
under Section 18 of the Act cannot be dismissed for default.
5. In the instant matters, while rejecting the Reference
applications under Section 18 of the Act, though the Reference
Court has not used the words "dismissed in default", observations
made by the reference court in the impugned judgment impliedly
mean that the Reference applications are dismissed in default i.e.
for want of evidence from the side of the claimants. The reference
court has not made any discussion or provided any reason as to
how the amount of compensation determined by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer is proper and reasonable and is the real market
value of the lands under acquisition.
6. In the above circumstances, in view of the law laid
down by the apex court in the case of Khajan Singh cited (cited
supra) and by this court in the case of Kawadu Madhav Bansod
6 915 fa 3772.16.odt
(cited supra) the impugned judgment and award cannot be
sustained. In the similar fact situation this court in the case of
Appasaheb Mohanrao Chede Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Anr. reported in 2012 (1) Bom.C.R. 458 and also in the case of
Arjun Shankar Waghmare and Anr. V/s. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2011 (2) Bom. C.R. 866, deemed it
proper to remit back the matters to the reference court for their
decision on merits by setting aside the awards impugned in the said
petitions. The same course needs to be followed in the instant
matters.
7. During the course of his arguments it was urged by the
learned A.G.P. Shri Wattamwar that despite availing ample
opportunities before the reference court, the claimants did not
adduce any evidence in support of their claim and in such
circumstances the reference court was constrained to deliver the
impugned judgment. The learned A.G.P. submitted that, even in
case of remand certain observations are required to be made by
this court as about conduct of the claimants in conducting the
reference applications before the reference court. The learned
A.G.P. submitted that, in no case the claimants can be made
entitled for the statutory benefits or interest of the period which has
been consumed by them in not proceeding with the matter.
Learned A.G.P., therefore, prayed for dis-entitling the petitioner
from claiming statutory benefits and interest of the aforesaid
7 915 fa 3772.16.odt
period.
8. From the material on record it appears that, the learned
A.G.P. is fully justified in making such submission. Needles to state
that the Reference Court will definitely take into account the
circumstances and decide whether to award interest to the
claimants of the entire period or otherwise, if it reaches to the
conclusion that the hearing of the Reference applications was
prolonged only at the instance of and because of the lapses on the
part of the claimants and will take appropriate decision on the said
issue while passing the final award.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants makes
a statement that on the first date of hearing, which may be fixed by
the Reference Court, the appellants/claimants will file all necessary
documents including the relevant sale instances and would also
adduce the necessary evidence within three months from the first
date of appearance before the Reference Court after remand.
10. It has to be further stated that, while condoning the
delay of 1367 days which has occurred in filing the present appeals
by the claimants an undertaking has been submitted by the
claimants to the effect that they will not claim any statutory benefit
or interest for the period of delay.
11. For the reasons stated above I pass the following order.
8 915 fa 3772.16.odt
ORDER
i) The common judgment and award impugned in
the present appeals in L.A.R. nos. 706/2000,
707/2000, 708/2000, 709/2000, 710/2000,
712/2000, 713/2000 and 714/2000 is quashed
and set aside.
ii) The matter is remitted back to the learned
Reference Court for its disposal afresh in
accordance with law;
iii) The parties are directed to appear before the
learned reference court on 15.11.2016 and shall
promptly adduce evidence in support of their
claim in the application or in the written
statement both will be at liberty.
iv) The Reference Court by recording necessary
evidence and hearing the parties shall decide the
Reference Applications as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within a period of nine
months thereafter; It is clarified that as
undertaken by the appellants they will not claim
any statutory benefit for the interest of period of
delay as undertaken by them in the civil
applications filed by them before this court.
v) The First Appeals stand partly allowed in the
9 915 fa 3772.16.odt
aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Pending
Civil Application, if any, stand disposed of.
(P.R. BORA)
JUDGE
mub
