Nivrathi Ramji Kamble & Anr vs State Of Mah & Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 5681 Bom

                               1      fa871.05

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

                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 871 OF 2005

1] Nivrathi s/o Ramji Kamble
   age 55 years, occ. Agril. Worker
   R/o Hiwarkheda, Tq.Hingoli,
   District Hingoli,
2] Ramji s/o Panduji Kamble,
   age 75 years, occ. Agril.,
   R/o as above                   ... Appellants

                VERSUS

1] The State of Maharashtra,
2] The Special Land Acquisition
   Officer, P.T. & M.I. Ward
   Uppar Penganga Project,
   Parbhani                              ... Respondents

                               WITH

                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 872 OF 2005

Shankar s/o Kondaji Wakale
(died) through his L.Rs.
Yeshodabai w/o Kautika Wakale,
age 45 years, occ. Agril. Worker,
R/o Hiwarkheda, Tq. & 
Dist. Hingoli                     ... Appellant

                VERSUS

1] The State of Maharashtra,
2] The Special Land Acquisition
   Officer, P.T. & M.I. Ward
   Uppar Penganga Project,
   Parbhani                              ... Respondents

                               AND




::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2017          ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2017 02:28:46 :::
                                        2       fa871.05

                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 873 OF 2005

Shankar s/o Maneji Wakale,
age 56 years, occ. Agril.worker,
R/o Khadki, Tq. Jintoor,
Dist. Parbhani                                   ... Appellant

                VERSUS

1] The State of Maharashtra,
2] The Special Land Acquisition
   Officer, P.T. & M.I. Ward
   Uppar Penganga Project,
   Parbhani                                      ... Respondents

                       .....
Mr. P.S.Agrawal, advocate for the appellants
Mr. A.M.Phule, A.G.P for respondents
                       .....

                               CORAM : K.L.WADANE, J.

DATED : 7th AUGUST, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the appellants

and learned A.G.P. for respondents/State.

2. All these three appeals arise out of

common judgment and order, passed by the learned

Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli in Land

Acquisition Reference Nos. 4 of 1990, 6 of 1990

and 8 of 1990, by which the said Land References

of the claimants were rejected on the ground that

3 fa871.05

the claimants failed to adduce the evidence and

also on the ground that the References were not

within limitation.

3. On perusal of the record, it appears that

the Special Land Acquisition, Parbhani mentioned

in its award that none of the interested persons

were present on the date when the award was

passed. Therefore, notices under Section 12(2) of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the

Act') were issued to them. From the copy of the

notices under Section 12 (2) of the Act, it

reveals that the notices were issued on 18.9.1987

and the References were submitted on 7.10.1987.

4. After hearing both the sides, the issue

for consideration of this Court is whether the

References filed by the appellants are within

specified time as provided under Section 18(2)(a)

and (b) of the Act.

5. Section 18(2)(a) and (b) reads as

follows :

"18. Reference to Court. --

(1) ......... ........ (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the

4 fa871.05

award is taken:

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub- section (2); or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire."

On perusal of Section 18(2(a) and (b) of

the Act, it is clear that if the interested person

is present or represented before the Collector,

then the period of limitation is six weeks from

the date of the Collector,s award, and in other

cases, within six weeks of the receipt of notice

from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act

or within six months from the date of Collector's

award, whichever shall first expire.

6. From the record, it appears that the

Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notices to

the appellants on 18.9.1987 and the References

were filed on 7.10.1987. Therefore, even it is

not clear from the record that on which date the

claimants have received notices under Section

5 fa871.05

12(2) of the Act, however, taking the date of

issuance of notification under Section 12(2) of

the Act, the References were filed well within

limitation.

7. From the reasons recorded by learned Civil

Judge, Senior Division, it appears that the Court

has decided the Reference in very casual manner

and without mentioning the date of issuance of

notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act, when the

References were submitted before the concerned

Land Acquisition Officer, and the References of

the appellants have been dismissed.

8. I have gone through the reasons recorded

by the Trial Court. The Trial Court on wrong

assumption has dismissed the References. The Land

References of the appellants/claimants were well

within limitation.

9. Hence, the following order.

(i) All the First Appeals are allowed.

(ii) The common judgment and order,

passed by the Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Hingoli, dated 28.7.2004, is

6 fa871.05

hereby set aside.

(iii) The matters are remanded back to

the learned Civil Judge Senior Division,

Hingoli for disposal in accordance with

law.

(iv) The parties are directed to remain

present before the Trial Court on

4.9.2017.

(v) The Trial Court is directed to

dispose of the References, as early as

possible, preferably within six months

from today.

(vi) All the contentions of the parties

are kept open.

(vii) All the First Appeals are disposed

of.

(viii) Record and proceedings be sent

forthwith to the Trial Court.

(K.L.WADANE, J.)

dbm