Parshram Namdev Padghan (Dead), ... vs The Collector Washim, Washim And 2 ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9275 Bom

                                                     1                wp7606.2017.odt

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

                               Writ Petition No. 7606/2017

      Parshram Namdev Padghan (Dead), 
      Madhukar S/o Parshram Padghan,
      Aged about 51 years, Occ. Agri. Labour, 
      R/o Mohaja Road, Tq. And Dist. Washim

                                                           ..... PETITIONER

                                 ...V E R S U S...

 1] The Collector Washim, Distt. Washim

 2] Special Land Acquisition, 
      Officer No. 2, Washim, Distt. Washim

 3] Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation 
      Division Washim, Distt. Washim

                                                           ... RESPONDENTS

 =====================================
                      Shri V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioner
                  Shri N.H. Joshi, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2
                 Shri V.G. Palshikar, Advocate for the respondent no. 3
 =====================================

                                              CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
                                              DATED :- 4    December, 2017
                                                         th
                                                                           


 ORAL JUDGMENT :-


                Heard Shri V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri 

 N.H. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 

 2   and   Shri   V.G.   Palshikar,   Advocate   for   the   respondent   no.   3.     The 

 advocates  for respondents have put in appearance on being served with 

 the copy of the petition and as legal issue is raised in the petition, the 




::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017                              ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 00:18:38 :::
                                                  2                  wp7606.2017.odt

 petition is taken up for hearing. 



                Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 



 2]             The petitioner (original claimant) has challenged the order 

 passed by the Reference Court rejecting the application (Exh. 11) filed 

 by   the   petitioner   seeking   permission   to   amend   the   reference.   The 

 petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Reference Court 

 on 08/11/2017 directing that the evidence on behalf of the petitioner is 

 closed   and   the   matter   is   fixed   for   recording   of   evidence   of   the 

 respondents. 



 3]             The petitioner had filed the application (Exh. 11) seeking 

 permission   to   amend   the  reference.   This  application   was  rejected   on 

 23/08/2017 with costs of Rs. 1,000/- which the petitioner was required 

 to deposit till next date on which the proceedings were fixed, the next 

 date being 04/10/2017. On 04/10/2017, the petitioner sought time to 

 deposit   the   amount   of   costs.   The   trial   Court   granted   time   till 

 08/11/2017   to   deposit   the   amount   of   costs.   On   08/11/2017,   the 

 petitioner   sought   adjournment   on   the   ground   that   he   intends   to 

 challenge the order passed on the application (Exh. 11) on 23/08/2017. 

 This application is rejected by the trial Court by the order passed on 

 08/11/2017   and   it   is   directed   that   the   evidence   on   behalf   of   the 




::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017                            ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 00:18:38 :::
                                                     3                   wp7606.2017.odt

 petitioner is closed and the matter is fixed for recording of evidence of 

 the respondents. 



 4]             The   tenor   of   the   impugned   orders   show   that   the 

 applications have been rejected as the reference is pending since 2003. 

 The learned trial Judge reeled under the impression that the petitioner 

 is   trying   to   delay   the   disposal   of   the   reference   proceedings.   The 

 petitioner is seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. The 

 impression carried by the learned trial Judge is without any basis.   It 

 cannot be said that the petitioner is gaining anything by protracting the 

 matter. 



 5]             By the proposed amendment, the petitioner seeks to bring 

 on record pleadings to substantiate his claim for fruit trees. 



 6]             Considering the facts of the case, I find that the Reference 

 Court has committed an error by rejecting the application (Exh. 11) and 

 by directing that the evidence on behalf of the petitioner is closed. 



                In  my   view,   in   the  facts   of   the   case,   the   following   order 

 would sub-serve the ends of justice:-

                                              O R D E R

1] The order passed on the application (Exh.

4 wp7606.2017.odt

11) on 23/08/2017 is set aside.

2] The application (Exh. 11) is allowed and

the petitioner is permitted to amend the reference.

3] The order passed by the Reference Court

on 08/11/2017 is set aside. The Reference Court shall

permit the petitioner to lead evidence after the

amendment is carried out in the reference.

4] The Reference Court shall proceed with the

reference further and decide it according to law.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

A n s a r i