Bombay High Court
Sunderbai Digambar Koyale And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 22 June, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA. 3476 OF 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
901 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3476 OF 2016
1. Sau. Sundarbai wrongly shown Sunderbai
W/o Digambar Koyale,
Age : 58 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Rajashri W/o Sanju Koyale,
Age : 38 years, Occu. Agril.,
Both R/o. Borol, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur. .. Appellants
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur.
2. The Execution Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division,
Old Ausa Road, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur. .. Respondents
...
Mr. S.S. Chillarge, Advocate for Appellants
Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent No.1
...
CORAM: P. R. BORA, J.
DATE : 22TH JUNE, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respective parties.
2. The appellants have challenged the Judgment & Award
passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Udgir in Land Acquisition
Reference No.1799 of 2010 decided on 24.02.2016.
2 FA. 3476 OF 2016
3. The aforesaid reference application was preferred by the
present appellants, seeking enhancement in the amount of
compensation, invoking the provisions of Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act. The reference Court has rejected the reference on
the ground of limitation. Since the reference Court has recorded a
finding that the reference application was not filed within a period of
limitation, the reference Court has not decided the other issues
framed in the matter as about the inadequacy of the compensation or
as about the real market value of the acquired land and whether the
appellants are entitled for any enhancement in the amount of
compensation etc.
4. Shri. Chillarge, the learned Counsel appearing for the
appellants, submitted that the reference Court has taken the date of
presentation of the reference application by the Collector in the Court
as a date of filing the reference application by the
appellants/claimants and accordingly held that, the reference
application was not filed by the appellants within the period of
limitation. The learned Counsel, taking me through the record of the
case, and more particularly the application as was preferred by the
appellants to the Collector at Latur pointed out that the same was
submitted by the appellants on 11.09.2006.
5. The learned counsel further pointed out that, while
forwarding the reference to the Civil Court at Latur in the forwarding
letter dt. 26.03.2008, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has
categorically mentioned that the application u/s 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act was filed by the appellants within the stipulated
3 FA. 3476 OF 2016
period. The Learned counsel submitted that, since beginning it was
the specific contention of the appellants that they come to know
about the award passed u/s 11 of the Act on 11.08.2006 when
Section 12 (2) notice was served upon them and amount of
compensation was offered to them. The learned counsel submitted
that, thereafter within one month the appellants preferred the
application u/s 18 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that the
application submitted by the appellants was well within the period of
limitation, however, the reference Court has erroneously held the
same to have been filed beyond the period of limitation.
6. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the
finding so recorded by the reference Court and consequently to set
aside the dismissal of the application by the reference Court and
direct the reference Court to decide the matter afresh.
7. Shri. Sonpawale, learned AGP appearing for the
respondent/State, supported the impugned Judgment & Order. The
learned AGP submitted that, the primary burden was on the appellant
to bring on record cogent and sufficient evidence to show at which
date the appellants came to know about passing of the award u/s 11
of the Act. The learned AGP submitted that the appellants have
utterly failed in bringing on record any such evidence. The learned
AGP further submitted that the appellants have not brought on
record any evidence to prove their contention that they come to know
about the award passed u/s 11 of the Act on 11.08.2006. He further
submitted that in absence of any such evidence, the learned reference
Court has rightly held that the appellants have failed to prove that
4 FA. 3476 OF 2016
the application u/s 18 was filed by them within stipulated period of
limitation. The learned AGP, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. I have carefully perused the record of the case. The record
reveals that, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had forwarded the
reference, in question, to District Court at Latur for its adjudication
along with its covering letter dt. 26.03.2008 having outward number
2003/LNQ/PTIT/CR 58 dt. 26.03.2008. In the covering letter the
Special Land Acquisition Officer has clearly stated that the appellants
have filed the reference proceeding u/s 18 of the Act for the
enhancement of the amount of compensation within the stipulated
period. The record further shows that the reference application was
presented before the Civil Judge for first orders on 31.03.2008.
9. It appears that the reference Court has held the said date of
31.03.2008 to be the date of filing the reference application by the
appellants. The reference Court has failed in appreciating that the
appellants could not have presented the application u/s 18 of the Act
directly to the Civil Court at their own. The application was to be
submitted by the appellants with the Collector and the Collector was
then to forward the said reference application for adjudication to the
civil Court. From the record it is further clear that the application,
which was forwarded by the District Court, Latur to civil Court bears
the date of filing such application as 11.09.2006. I do not see any
reason to disbelieve the said date as has been mentioned. Whether
the Collector forwards it immediately or otherwise was not within the
control of the appellants. The only obligation on part of the
5 FA. 3476 OF 2016
appellants was to file the application to the Collector u/s 18 of the
Act within the stipulated period of limitation i.e. either within six
weeks from the date of award or within six weeks after receipt of the
notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act.
10. In absence of any contrary evidence, there was no reason
for reference Court to reject the contention of the appellants made on
oath that they received the knowledge about the award passed u/s 11
of the Act on 11.08.2006 and, thereafter, they had preferred the
application u/s 18 of the Act to Collector, Latur on 11.09.2006. The
reference Court has thus recorded an erroneous finding on the point
of limitation which needs to be quashed and set aside and
accordingly it is quashed and set aside.
11. As mentioned earlier, since the finding on the point of
limitation was recorded against the appellants, the reference Court
did not make any endeavour to answer the other issues and recorded
that the other issues do not survive in view of the fact that the
application itself cannot be considered since the same was not filed
within the period of limitation. In view of the fact that the application
so filed is held by this Court to have been filed within the period of
limitation, the matter needs to be remitted back to the reference
Court for deciding it afresh on merits by giving due opportunity to
the parties to adduce oral or documentary evidence in support of
their respective contentions.
12. For the reasons stated above, the following order is passed.
6 FA. 3476 OF 2016
ORDER
1. The impugned Judgment & Award passed by Civil Judge
Senior Division, Udgir in LAR No.1799 of 2010 decided on
24.02.2016, is quashed & set aside.
2. It is held that the reference application filed by the
appellants was filed within the period of limitation.
3. The reference Court is directed to decide the reference
application as expeditiously as possible by giving due opportunities to
the parties to the proceedings for adducing the necessary oral &
documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions.
4. The parties to appear before the reference Court on
10.07.2017, so that no fresh notices may be required to be issued by
the reference Court.
5. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall
be no order as to costs.
6. The record & proceedings be sent back to the reference
Court forthwith.
[ P. R. BORA, J. ]
ggp
