Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Ashok Kashinath Timande And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9260 Bom

                                               1                  Jud.FA 683.12.odt


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

                               First Appeal No. 683/2012

 Appellant:-                              Vidarbha Irrigation Development
 (On RA)                                  Corporation, through Executive
                                          Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division,
                                          Wardha.

                                          VERSUS

 Respondents:-                  1.        Ashok Kashinath Timande,
 (On RA)                                  aged about 42 yrs, Occ. Cultivator
                                          R/o. Kora, Post Kora,
                                          Tq. Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha.

                                2.        State of Maharashtra through
                                          Collector, (Special Land
                                          Acquisition Officer), Wardha.

                                3.        Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                                          Wardha.




 Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate for appellant
 Shri Abhijit Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.1
 Shri M. A. Kadu, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
 ___________________________________________________________________________

                                        WITH

                         Cross Objection No. 101/2017


 Appellant:-                              Vidarbha Irrigation Development
 (On R.A.)                                Corporation, through Executive
 (Orig. N.A. No.2)                        Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division,
                                          Wardha.

                                          VERSUS

 Respondents:-                  1.        Ashok Kashinath Timande,
 (No.1 Org. Clmt. &                       aged about 42 yrs, Occ. Cultivator
 No.2 Orig.N.A.No.1)                      R/o. Kora, Post Kora,
 (On R.A.)                                Tq. Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha.
                                          (Cross-objector)

                                2.        State of Maharashtra through
                                          Collector, (Special Land
                                          Acquisition Officer), Wardha.




::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017                        ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 02:46:25 :::
                                                  2                   Jud.FA 683.12.odt



                                 3.          Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                                             Wardha.




 Shri Abhijit Deshpande, Advocate for cross-objector.
 Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent No.1
 Shri M. A. Kadu, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 2.
 ___________________________________________________________________________

                                      CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.

                                      DATE       : 04.12.2017.
 Oral Judgment :

This appeal and the cross objection both challenge

the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated

31.08.2010 rendered in Land Acquisition Case No. 181/2004

by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha. The

appeal takes an exception to the market value of the land

determined by the Reference Court and the compensation

granted by it. The cross objection filed by the original

claimant questions the assessment of compensation done by

the Reference Court. The appeal has been filed by the

acquiring body and the cross objection has been filed by the

original claimant while other party is the State.

2. It has been submitted by Shri Deshpande, learned

counsel for the claimant that whole proceedings under Section

18 of the Land Acquisition Act have been rendered vitiated

because notice issued under Section 20 of the Land

3 Jud.FA 683.12.odt

Acquisition Act was never received by the claimant. He

submits that as the notice was not received by the claimant,

the claimant had no idea as to when the reference application

was fixed for evidence and the result was that the claimant

was absent in the matter. Shri Kasat, learned counsel for the

acquiring body, however, strongly disputes the contentions.

According to him, Roznama is the record of the Court and it

must be given its due credence for what is stated in the

Roznama. He submits that if one goes by the Roznama, one

would find that the claimant was duly represented by his

Advocate on various dates before the Reference Court. He

further submits that the object of issuance of notice under

Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is to make aware

the applicant of the various dates of the various stages of his

application before the Civil Court so that the claimant can take

appropriate steps in order to justify his claim for grant of

enhancement of compensation. He submits that this object in

the present case has been more than fulfilled by the presence

of Advocate of the claimant on various dates before the Court.

Therefore, according to him, this is not fit case for

interference.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State

submits that Roznama is the reflection of the transactions that

4 Jud.FA 683.12.odt

take place on each date in Court's proceedings and therefore,

the Roznama needs to be taken into consideration

appropriately. He however, concedes to the fact that there is

no endorsement made anywhere in the Roznama that the

notice issued to the claimant by the Court under Section 20 of

the Land Acquisition Act was duly received by the claimant.

4. On going through the Roznama of this case, I find

that the arguments of learned counsel for the acquiring body

are devoid of any substance. I also find that the submission of

learned counsel for the claimant needs to be accepted. In the

ordinary course, the Roznama would be given its due credit by

the Court but, unfortunately, this is a case wherein, on the

face of it, the Roznama appears to be written carelessly.

The endorsements made in the Roznama in respect of several

dates are inconsistent with transactions of the case on those

particular dates. On 3rd December, 2005, the Roznama states

that both the parties are absent. Here we are concerned with

the presence or absence of the applicant. Till that date, no

notice under Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act had been

issued and therefore, there is no question of the applicant

remaining present before the Court. Yet Roznama depicts the

applicant as absent party. The Reference Court issued notice

under Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act on 3 rd December,

5 Jud.FA 683.12.odt

2005 and thereafter, on various dates, the case was adjourned

just for return of the notice issued to the applicant. One such

date was 29th July, 2006. The Roznama of this date however,

does not say anything about service of notice issued under

Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act to the applicant. It

straightaway says that the parties are represented by their

respective counsel. One does not know as to how the author

of Roznama came to the conclusion that the notice had been

duly served on the applicant and that the parties were

represented by the respective counsel. Admittedly, the

second part of the notice showing acknowledgment made by

the applicant in receipt of the notice is not forming part of

record. This is together with the fact that there is no

endorsement in the Roznama that on particular date, this

notice was received by the applicant. So , it is very difficult to

take various endorsements in the Roznama maintained in this

case as correct. One requires to look into the record to verify

correctness of entries in the Roznama.

5. On 10th June, 2010, it is stated in the Roznama that

the applicant's counsel was present and the matter was fixed

for filing of say by the applicant at Exhibit-10. The next date

was 26th July, 2010 and on that date, no say was filed and

therefore, the matter was adjourned for say to 30 th August,

6 Jud.FA 683.12.odt

2010. The Roznama of 30th August, 2010 discloses that on

that date, the say was filed and this say was at Exhibit-11.

Exhibit-11 is however, an application filed by the acquiring

body raising preliminary objections. It is not the say of the

applicant. The order passed below Exhibit-10 on which say

has been shown to be filed by the applicant in the Roznama

discloses another startling fact. The order categorically says

that no say has been filed. These instances should be enough

for this Court to reject the Roznama maintained in the present

case by the Reference Court. This Roznama has been

incorrectly maintained and unfortunately, such incorrect

Roznama has been signed by various Presiding Officers

without even looking into its contents.

6. So, it is quite clear that this is a case wherein, no

notice has been received by the applicant under Section 20 of

the Land Acquisition Act and that no sufficient opportunity has

been made available to the applicant to present his case for

enhancing compensation. The proceedings of the Reference

Court are thus, vitiated and therefore, impugned judgment

and order can not be sustained in the eye of law.

7. The appeal as well as cross objection both are

allowed. The impugned judgment and order are quashed and

7 Jud.FA 683.12.odt

set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Reference

Court for its trial afresh in accordance with law. Notice under

Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act will not be required as

the applicant shall, suo motu, appear before the Reference

Court he being willing and so the remaining parties.

8. The parties to appear before the Reference Court on

8th January, 2018. The Reference Court shall dispose of the

application within three months from the date of appearance

of the parties. The parties shall co-operate with the Reference

Court and shall not seek any adjournment unless justified by

the circumstances beyond their control.

JUDGE Gohane