Bombay High Court
The Exe.Engg.Minor ... vs Shayamrao S/O.Janba Dangore & 4 ... on 8 June, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 150 of 2001
Appellant : 1. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation
Division, Nagpur
1A. Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, Nagpur, through its Executive
Engineer, Medium Project Division, Civil
Lines, Nagpur
versus
Respondents : 1. Shamrao s/o Janba Dangore (Dead)
through his legal representatives -
(1) Smt Indirabai wd/o Shyamrao Dangore,
aged about 48 years, Occ: Household, r/o
Khumari, Tahsil Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur
(2) Pradeep s/o Shyamrao Dangore, aged
about 27 years, Occ: Agriculturist, r/o
Khumari, Tahsil Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur
(3) Kishor s/o Shyamrao Dangore, aged
about 23 years, Occ: Student, r/o
Khumari, Tahsil Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:54:56 :::
2
(4) Sau Ashabai w/o Tejram Chandurkar,
aged about 29 years, Occ: Housewife, r/o
Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur
(5) Sau Shaila w/o Sudhakarrao Ghatol,
aged about 25 years, Occ: Household, r/o
Lonkhairi, Tahsil Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur
2. Smt Yashodabai wd/o Pandurang Nerkar,
aged about 60 years, resident of Mohpa,
Tahsil Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur
3. The State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Collectorate, Nagpur
5. The Collector, Nagpur
Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for appellant
Shri A. P. Raghute, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 2
Ms Tajwar Khan, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents no. 3, 4 and 5
----------
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J
Dated : 8th June 2017
Oral Judgment
1. This appeal questions the legality and correctness of the judgment
and order dated 31.1.2001 delivered in Land Acquisition Case No. 209 of 1993
by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. I have heard Shri V. G.
Palshikar, learned counsel for appellants; Shri A. P. Raghute, learned counsel
for legal representatives of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and Ms
Tajwar Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents no. 3, 4
and 5.
2. Previously, this appeal was dismissed by this Court by order passed
on 267th October 2016. The reason was that the appellant was not found
entitled to file and maintain this appeal as the Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation had no right to participate in the proceedings before the Collector
or the Reference Court. The order of dismissal was challenged in appeal before
the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court by order passed on 20 th March
2007 set aside the order of dismissal of appeal holding that the appellant should
participate in the proceedings pertaining to the compensation, it being
beneficiary and under liability to pay the compensation. The Supreme Court
has remitted this appeal to this Court for adjudicating it in accordance with law
and expeditiously. Accordingly, this appeal has been taken up for expeditious
disposal.
3. The main plank of challenge raised in this appeal is that the
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC) or predecessor-in-title,
Executive Engineer, minor Irrigation, though beneficiary and though liable to
pay compensation, was not made a party-respondent in the Reference Court and
thus, the impugned judgment and order violated basic principle of rule of law,
which is of right of being heard before any order is passed.
4. In the case of Abdul Rasak and ors v. Kerala Water Authority &
ors reported in 2002 AIR SCW 477, the Apex Court has held that an entity for
whose benefit the land is acquired, is entitled to appear and adduce evidence for
the purpose of determining the compensation and, therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of that case, the order of remand of case by the High Court for
decision afresh by Reference Court after affording the parties opportunity of
adducing evidence in support of their respective contention was upheld.
5. In the instant case, the present appellant VIDC is successor to the
Minor Irrigation Division, Nagpur. The Award of the Land Acquisition Officer
shows that the land was acquired after proposal for its acquisition was received
from the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Nagpur. Office of the
Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Nagpur is without any doubt
liable to pay compensation. In other words, Office of the Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Nagpur is an entity on whom the liability to pay
compensation has been fastened. Therefore, by following the law settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Rasak (supra) as well as the order
passed by the Apex Court in the present matter on 20 th March 2017, I hold that
the VIDC or its predecessor-in-title is a necessary party and not having been
joined so, the impugned judgment and order has to be termed as vitiated by the
violation of the principle of natural justice and, therefore, interference by this
Court will be justified.
6. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and
order is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Reference
Court for decision afresh in accordance with law after giving parties sufficient
opportunity of leading evidence as well as cross-examining witnesses including
tendering of documentary evidence. The Reference Application be disposed of
within three months from the date of appearance of the parties. Parties to
appear before the Reference Court on 3.7.2017 at 11.00 am. Parties shall
cooperate with the Reference Court for expeditious disposal of the proceedings.
Parties are further directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the amount so
far withdrawn by the claimants. However, such withdrawal shall be considered
by the Reference Court in making the appropriate adjustment or issuing
appropriate directions at the time of final disposal of the Reference Application.
The balance amount be relegated to the Reference Court which shall be kept in
fixed deposit by the trial Court till final disposal of the Reference Application.
No order as to costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J
joshi
