Smt. Shakuntala Madhav Wani And 2 ... vs The Collector, Nagpur And 2 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 806 Bom

232-CRA-26-15                                                                               1/5


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

                 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.26 OF 2015


1.  Shakuntala Madhav Wani
     Aged 72 years, Occ. Nil 

2. Chaya Machukarrao Tambhakhe
    Aged about 64 years, Occ. Nil 

3.  Shashikala Narayan Thakare
     Aged about 60 years, Occ. Nil 

    All R/o Mukund Raj Lane, 
    Fattarphod Darwaja, Mahal, Nagpur                          ... Applicants. 

-vs-

1.  The Collector,
     Nagpur District, Nagpur 

2.  The Additional Special Land
     Acquisition Officer, Pench Project, 
     (MIHAN), Civil Lines, Nagpur, 
     Tah & District : Nagpur 

3.  Superintendent Engineer,
     Maharashtra Airport Development 
     Corporation Ltd. Nagpur.                                  ... Non-applicants. 


Shri V. D. Raut, Advocate for applicants. 
Shri M. A. Kadu, Assistant Government Pleader for non-applicant Nos.1 & 2. 
Shri S. Y. Deopujari, Advocate for non-applicant No.3. 

                                                  CORAM  : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J. 

DATE : March 17, 2017

Oral Judgment :

The applicants have filed the present revision application under

232-CRA-26-15 2/5

Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the said Act) as

they are aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Collector on

24/11/2014 refusing to entertain the reference proceedings on the ground

that they were filed beyond the period of limitation.

2. By award dated 29/01/2008 passed by the Land Acquisition

Officer the land belonging to the applicants came to be acquired. Notice

under Section 12(2) of the said Act was issued on 18/02/2008. As the

applicants did not receive the amount of compensation they had approached

this Court and in W.P.No.366/2009 this Court after noting that the objection

as to the ownership of the land in question had been referred to the Civil

Court under Section 30 of the said Act, expedited those proceedings. It

was noted that the amount of compensation was deposited with the Civil

Court. Thereafter on 02/07/2010 one Yashodeep Gruha Nirman Sahakari

Sanstha (Ltd) filed reference under Section 30 of the said Act which came to

be dismissed on 28/07/2014. The applicants thereafter filed the reference

proceedings on 14/11/2014. On 24/11/2014 the Additional Collector

refused to accept those proceedings as they were barred by limitation. This

order is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings.

3. Shri V. D. Raut, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that

the reference under Section 30 of the said Act was decided on 28/07/2014.

232-CRA-26-15 3/5

After receiving the certified copy the applicants received the amount of

compensation on 17/10/2014 and the reference proceedings were filed

within six weeks from receiving the amount of compensation. It was

therefore submitted that the reference proceedings were filed within

limitation. He then submitted that the Additional Collector without giving

any opportunity to the applicants passed the impugned order by holding that

the reference proceedings under Section 18 of the said Act were barred by

limitation. For that purpose the learned counsel placed reliance upon

judgment of learned Single Judge in Super Construction Company vs. State

of Maharashtra and anr. 1995(2) Mh.L.J. 286 and the judgment of the

Full Bench in Bhupal Premchand Shah and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra

1994 Mh.L.J. 1558.

4. Shri M. A. Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for non-

applicant Nos.1 and 2 and Shri S. Y. Deopujari, learned counsel for non-

applicant No.3 supported the impugned order. It was submitted by them

that as per provisions of Section 18(2)(b) of the said Act, the reference

proceedings were required to be filed within a period of six weeks from

receiving a notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act. They urged that the

proceedings had been filed even after period of six weeks from the date of

the order passed by the Civil Court deciding the proceedings under Section

30 of the said Act. Shri Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader placed

232-CRA-26-15 4/5

reliance upon the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Madan and

anr. vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) 2 SCC 720 and judgment of learned

Single Judge in F.A.No.564/1997 decided on 21/08/2014 (Sumanbai w/o

Vasantrao Kalnikar vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.) in that regard.

5. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties I have

perused the documents on record and I have given due consideration to their

respective submissions. The point that arises for determination is whether

the reference proceedings were filed within limitation?

6. The dates on which the award was passed, notice under Section

12(2) of the said Act was issued and the date when the reference

proceedings under Section 18 of the said Act were filed is not in dispute. The

notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act was issued on 18/02/2008. The

reference under Section 30 of the said Act was filed by the Society concerned

only on 02/07/2010 which is almost after two years of issuance of notice

under Section 12(2) of the said Act. Nothing precluded the applicants from

filing the reference proceedings within the period of six weeks from

18/02/2008. Even if it is assumed that the reference proceedings should

have been filed within a period of six weeks from the date of the decision of

the Civil Court in proceedings under Section 30 of the said Act as observed

by Honourable Supreme Court in Madan and anr. (supra), these

232-CRA-26-15 5/5

proceedings have been filed beyond the period of six weeks, which is on

14/11/2014. It is to be noted that the applicants received the certified copy

of the order passed by the Civil Court under Section 30 of the said Act on

22/08/2014. Thus viewed from any angle the reference proceedings under

Section 18 of the said Act have been filed beyond the period of six weeks. As

regards the submission that the applicants were not heard before the order

was passed by the Additional Collector, it is to be noted that grant of such

hearing in the present facts would not have made any difference whatsoever

to the final conclusion inasmuch as various dates referred to above are

available on record and they are not in dispute. Hence grant of hearing in

view of facts of the present case would be nothing but empty formality. The

decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants do not assist

their case.

6. In view of aforesaid discussion, I do not find that the Additional

Collector committed any error in holding that the reference proceedings were

filed by the applicants beyond the period of six weeks as stipulated. The

point as framed is answered accordingly. There is no merit in the revision

application. The same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE Asmita