Moreshwar S/O Yeshwant Deshpande ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Collector ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2024 Bom

                                1
                                                          wp4434.09.odt

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                   Writ Petition No.4434 of 2009


  1. Moreshwar s/o Yeshwant Deshpande,
     Aged about 28 years,
     Occupation - Student.

  2. Chintamani s/o Yeshwant Deshpande,
     Aged about 32 years,
     Occupation - Agriculture.

  3. Vyankatesh s/o Yeshwant Deshpande,
     Aged about 35 years,
     Occupation - Business.

       All above resident of Digras,
       Taluka Digras, District Yavatmal.           ... Petitioners

       Versus

  1. The State of Maharashtra,
     through the Collector,
     Yavatmal, District Yavatmal.

  2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
     Darwah, Taluka Darwah,
     District Yavatmal.                            ... Respondents
                                                       

  Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Petitioners.
  Shri S.B. Bissa, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents.


                Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

th Dated : 26 April, 2017

wp4434.09.odt

Oral Judgment :

1. The award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 ("the said Act") was passed on 29-3-1989. On 17-9-1996,

the notice was issued to the petitioner-claimants to remain

present in the office of Collector for collecting the amount of

award. The petitioners claimed that the said notice was served

upon them on 29-9-1996 and the reference under Section 18 of

the said Act was preferred on 8-10-1996.

2. The Reference Court has dismissed the reference solely

on the ground that the reference was barred by the law of

limitation prescribed by Section 18(2)(b) of the said Act. There

is no finding by the Reference Court that the petitioners were

present either themselves or through their representative on the

date when the award was passed on 29-3-1989 or that they had

any notice of passing of the award on the said date. There is no

finding of the Reference Court as to the date on which the notice

under Section 12(2) of the said Act was actually served upon the

wp4434.09.odt

petitioners. The limitation under Section 18(2)(b) of the said Act

starts running from the date of knowledge of the award by the

petitioners. In the absence of any finding on the relevant aspects

of the matter, the Reference Court has committed an error in

dismissing the reference as barred by the law of limitation. The

judgment and order impugned cannot, therefore, be sustained

and it will have to be quashed and set aside with an order of

remand.

3. The petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and

order dated 17-9-2003 passed by the Reference Court in L.A.C.

No.20 of 1997, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is

remanded back to the Reference Court for decision afresh on all

the aspects, including the question of limitation. The Reference

Court shall permit the parties to lead oral as well as documentary

evidence on the question of bar of limitation, as also on merits of

the matter.

wp4434.09.odt

4. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to

costs.

JUDGE.

Lanjewar.