Dagadabai Manikchand Fulpagar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4715 Bom

                                         1                          FA 3390/2016

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      FIRST APPEAL NO.3390 OF 2016.

  1.       Dagadabai w/o Manikchand Fulpagar
           (Died, Lrs)

  1-A) Mangilal s/o Manikchand Fulpagar,
       Age: 50 Yrs., occu. Busines,
       R/o Kasari Bazar, Aurangabad,
       District Aurangabad.          =    APPELLANT
                                     (orig. claimant)

           VERSUS

  1)       The State of Maharashtra
           For the Special Land Acquisition 
           Officer (Vishesh Ghatak),
           Collector Office, Aurangabad.

  2)       The Municipal Corporation,
           Aurangabad, through the
           Commissioner.                          =        RESPONDENT/S 
                               -----
  Mr.Pratap P.Mandlik, Advocate for Appellant;
  Mr.SP Sonpawale,AGP for Respondent No.1;
  Mrs.Manjusha Deshpande, Adv. For Resp.No.2.
                                   -----
                               CORAM :  P.R.BORA, J.

DATE :

19 th

July,2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1) Heard. Admit. With consent of learned

counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for

final disposal.

                                      2                         FA 3390/2016

  2)               The present appeal is filed against the 

judgment and award passed by the Court of Joint

Civil Judge, Senior Division (Corporation Court,

Aurangabad) in LAR No.22/2012 (old LAR No.

21/1998) decided on 19th June, 2014.

3) The aforesaid Reference application was

filed by one Dagadabai w/o Manikchand Fulpagar

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,

(for short the Act) claiming enhancement in the

amount of compensation, as was offered by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer. The property

belonging to said Dagadabai was acquired by the

respondent corporation for widening of the road.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer had offered

the compensation of Rs.25,00,049/- and

dissatisfied with the amount of compensation so

offered, the application under Section 18 of the

Act was preferred by the original claimant.

4) The Reference Court has dismissed the

Reference application mainly on the ground that

3 FA 3390/2016

the claimant did not adduce any evidence in order

to substantiate the claim raised by her in the

Reference application.

5) Shri Mandlik, learned Counsel appearing

for the appellants, submitted that during

pendency of the reference application, original

claimant Dagadabai died on 25th December, 2012.

Since the legal heirs of deceased Dagadabai were

not aware of the progress in the reference

application filed by her, they could not be

brought on record in the reference application

and the reference application was ultimately

dismissed by the Reference Court vide the

impugned judgment and order dated 19th June, 2014.

6) The learned counsel submitted that the

present appeal is filed by the legal heirs of

deceased Dagadabai. The learned Counsel submitted

that the Reference Court could not have dismissed

the reference application on the ground that the

claimant did not adduce any evidence in order to

4 FA 3390/2016

substantiate her claim. Placing reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Ramanlal Deochand Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra

(AIR 2013 SC 3452),

- the learned Counsel submitted

that opportunity needs to be given to the legal

heirs of Dagadabai to prove their claim by

adducing necessary evidence there for and the

reference application requires to be decided on

merits. The learned Counsel, therefore, at the

first place, prayed for remanding the matter to

the Reference court for deciding it afresh by

giving due opportunity to the present appellants,

to adduce necessary evidence in support of their

claim.

7) The learned Counsel further submitted

that the appellants have also filed a separate

application seeking leave to adduce the evidence

before this Court so that the matter can be

decided by this Court in the First Appeal.

  8)               Smt. Deshpande, leaned Counsel appearing 





                                      5                         FA 3390/2016

for the respondent - Corporation, has opposed the

submissions made on behalf of the appellants.

The learned Counsel submitted that the reference

application was filed by the original claimant in

the year 1998 and from the record it is evident

that the same was not prosecuted for long 16

year, and claimant did not make any effort to

adduce evidence in support of her claim and that

was the reason that the reference court was

ultimately constrained to dismiss the same for

want of any evidence. The learned Counsel

submitted that without any sufficient reason

being brought on record by the appellants, no

interference is warranted in the impugned

judgment and award.

9) In the alternative, the learned Counsel

submitted that in view of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramanlal Shah

(cited supra), if the Court inclines to remit

back the matter to the reference court for

deciding it afresh, as has been held in the said

6 FA 3390/2016

judgment by the Hon'ble Apex court, the claimants

shall be dis-entitled from claiming interest of

the period which was consumed because of the

negligence or inaction on their part.

10) I have carefully considered the

submissions made on behalf of the learned Counsel

appearing for the appellants and learned Counsel

appearing for the respondents. On perusal of the

impugned judgment, it is evident that the

Reference Court has dismissed the reference

application mainly on the ground that the

claimant did not adduce any evidence in order to

substantiate her claim. In view of the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Ramanlal Shah, the said course was impermissible

for the reference court.

11) In the circumstances, as has been held

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramanlal

Shah (cited supra), the matter will have to be

remitted back to the reference court for deciding

7 FA 3390/2016

it afresh. While doing so, the submission made

on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent corporation also deserves to be

considered. The reference application was filed

in the year 1998. Though, there is nothing on

record to concretely show as to because of whose

negligence or inaction, the reference

application could not be proceeded further, a

reasonable inference can be drawn that when the

reference application remained pending for long

15 - 16 years, some blame is definitely

attributable on the part of the original claimant

also. In such circumstances, though I am

inclined to condone the delay, I deem it

appropriate to disentitle the claimants from

award of interest of the period of delay caused

in prosecuting the matter by them. Hence, the

following order -

ORDER

i) The Judgment and Award dated

19th June, 2012 passed by learned Civil

Judge, Senior Division, (Corporation

8 FA 3390/2016

Court), Aurangabad, in LAR No.22/2012 is

quashed and set aside. The matter is

remitted back to the reference court for

deciding it a fresh by giving due

opportunity to the parties to the lis;

ii) It is clarified that the

appellants/claimants shall not be

entitled for interest payable under the

provisions of the Land Acquisition Act

from 19.6.2014 till the date of this

order, on the enhanced amount of

compensation if the same is enhanced by

the Reference Court.

iii) In view of the fact that the

original reference application was filed

in the year 1998, the reference court

shall make endeavour to expeditiously

dispose of the reference application and

preferably within the period of eight

months from the date of this order.

                                             9                         FA 3390/2016



                   iv)             The   appeal   stands   allowed   in 

the aforesaid terms, however, without

any order as to costs. Pending civil

application, if any, stands disposed of.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

bdv/