Bhimrao S/O Narayan Nagpure (Thr. ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Secty. Dept Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6485 Bom

        J-fa558.09.odt                                                                                                     1/4 


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


                                      FIRST APPEAL No.558 OF 2009


        1.    Bhimrao s/o. Narayan Nagpure,
               (since died through his Legal Heirs)

               (i)  Smt. Kasubai wd/o. Bhimrao Nagpure,
                     Aged about 59 years, Occ.:Household. 

               (ii) Rajesh s/o. Bhimrao Nagpure,
                     Aged about 35 years, Occ.: Agriculturist.

               (iii)  Sau. Pratibha w/o. Chandrakant Kale,
                      Aged about 44 years, Occ.: Household.

               (iv) Sau. Sarita w/o. Sheshrao Lakhmapure,
                      Aged about 30 years, Occ.: Household.

                (v) Sunil s/o. Bhimrao Nagpure,
                      Aged about 40 years,
                      R/o. Prasad Colony, Butibori,
                      Tahsil-Nagpur (Rural), Distt. Nagpur.

        2.    Maroti s/o. Narayan Nagpure,
               Aged about 55 years,  Occ. : Agriculturist,
               R/o. Kanhalgaon (Satgaon), 
               Tahsil Nagpur (Rural), Distt. Nagpur.       :      APPELLANTS

                           ...VERSUS...

        1.    State of Maharashtra,
               Department of Irrigation,
               Through its Secretary, Mantralaya,
               Mumbai.

        2.    Special Land Acquisition Officer,
               Pench Project, Office of the Collectorate 
               Compound, Civil Lines, 
               Nagpur.




::: Uploaded on - 28/08/2017                                               ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:56:40 :::
         J-fa558.09.odt                                                                                                     2/4 




        3.    Executive Engineer,
               Lower Vena Project Divn. No.2,
               Nagpur.                                                                :      RESPONDENTS


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for the Appellants
        Ms. R.V. Kalia, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
        Shri M.A. Kadu, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                      CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

rd DATE : 23 AUGUST, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard finally by consent.

2. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order

dated 10th August, 2006, delivered by the 3 rd Ad-hoc Additional District

Judge, Nagpur in Land Acquisition Case No.159/1997.

3. According to Shri A.R. Patil, learned counsel for the

appellants, the impugned judgment does not correctly apply the settled

law, which says that unless it is proved that notice issued by the Collector

under Section 12(2) is accompanied by a copy of the award, it cannot be

said that the land owner has been served with proper notice and,

therefore, in such a case, the limitation would start running from the

date of receipt of the certified copy of the award. He, therefore, submits

that this is a fit case for remanding the matter back to the Reference

J-fa558.09.odt 3/4

Court.

4. Ms. R.V. Kalia, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2

and Shri M.A. Kadu, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submit that

there is no quarrel about the settled position of law and therefore, they

submit that an appropriate order in this appeal may be passed.

5. In view of the rival arguments, the only point that arises for

my determination :

Whether this is a fit case for remanding back to the Reference Court for decision afresh ?

6. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the

notice issued under Section 12(2) was not accompanied by the copy of

the award. There is also no dispute about the fact that the certified copy

of the award was received on 20 th January 1997 and immediately

thereafter on 24.2.1997, the reference application was filed. The period

of limitation is 42 days and in the present case, it would have to be

reckoned from 20th January 1997. As the reference was filed on

24.2.1997, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Premji Nathu vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR

2012 SC 1624, I find that the reference application was well within

limitation. It was filed before expiry of the period of 42 days to be

counted from 20th January 1997.

7. In fact, the facts of this case would also show that the issue

J-fa558.09.odt 4/4

involved in the present case is covered by similar view taken by this

Court in First Appeal No.804/2006, decided on 14 th June 2017.

8. In view of above, I find that this is a fit case for remitting

back to the Reference Court for a decision afresh in accordance with law,

which I do so. The point is answered accordingly.

9. The parties to bear their own costs.

10. The parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court

on 11th September, 2017.

11. The Reference Court is requested to decide the reference

afresh in accordance with law within three months from the date of

appearance of the parties before it.

12. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.

JUDGE okMksns