Bombay High Court
State Of Mah. Thru. Dept. Of ... vs Sonali D/O Giradhar Nagpure on 14 September, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.791 OF 2009
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Irrigation,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
through its Secretary.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Pench Project, Office of the Collector,
Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
through the Executive Engineer,
Lower Vena Project, Division No.2,
Nagpur. : APPELLANTS
...VERSUS...
Swapnil s/o. Girdhar Nagpure,
Aged about 22 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Kanhalgaon,
Tah. And Distt. Nagpur. : RESPONDENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. M. Kadukar, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellants 1 & 2
Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for appellant no. 3
Shri A. R. Patil, Advocate for respondent
FIRST APPEAL No.345 OF 2008
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Irrigation,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
through its Secretary.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:59 :::
2/9
Pench Project, Office of the Collector,
Nagpur, Civil Lines, District Nagpur.
3. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
through the Executive Engineer,
Lower Vena Project, Division No.2,
Nagpur. : APPELLANTS
...VERSUS...
Subhash s/o. Namdeorao Nagpure,
Aged about 48 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Kanhalgaon, Tah. Nagpur (Rural),
Distt. Nagpur. : RESPONDENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. M. Kadukar, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellants 1 & 2
Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for appellant no. 3
Shri A. R. Patil, Advocate for respondent
FIRST APPEAL No. 346 OF 2008
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Irrigation,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
through its Secretary.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Pench Project, Office of the Collector,
Nagpur, Civil Lines, District Nagpur.
3. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
through the Executive Engineer,
Lower Vena Project, Division No.2,
Nagpur. : APPELLANTS
...VERSUS...
Amendment Sheshrao s/o. Dadaji Nagpure,
carried out as per Aged 51 years,
Court's order
dt.10.2.2014. Occupation : Agriculturist,
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:59 :::
3/9
R/o. Kanhalgaon, Tah. Nagpur (Rural),
Distt. Nagpur. Deleted
Legal Representatives of Respondent
Shri Sheshrao Dadaji Nagpure (Deceased).
1. Sunanda Sheshrao Nagpure (Wife)
Aged about 44 years.
2. Atul s/o. Sheshrao Nagpure (Son)
Aged about 24 years.
3. Ku. Priya d/o. Sheshrao Nagpure (Daughter)
Aged about 22 years.
4. Sauraj s/o. Sheshrao Nagpure (Son)
Aged about 20 years.
5. Swapnil s/o. Sheshrao Nagpure (Son)
Aged about 20 years.
All R/o. At Kanhalgaon, Satgaon, P.O..:
Ridhora (Satgaon), Tq. Hingna,
District Nagpur. : RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Mrinal Naik, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellants 1 & 2
Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for appellant no. 3
Shri A. R. Patil, Advocate for respondents
FIRST APPEAL No.529 OF 2010
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Irrigation,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
through its Secretary.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Pench Project, Office of the Collector,
Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
through the Executive Engineer,
Lower Vena Project, Division No.2,
Nagpur. : APPELLANTS
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:59 :::
4/9
...VERSUS...
Ku. Sonali d/o. Giradhar Nagpure,
Aged about 21 years,
Occupation : Nil (Agriculturist),
R/o. Kanhalgaon, Tah. & Distt. Nagpur. : RESPONDENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Mrinal Naik, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellants 1 & 2
Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for appellant no. 3
Shri A. R. Patil, Advocate for respondent
FIRST APPEAL No.654 OF 2010
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Irrigation,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
through its Secretary.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Pench Project, Office of the Collector,
Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
through the Executive Engineer,
Lower Vena Project, Division No.2,
Nagpur. : APPELLANTS
...VERSUS...
Keshav s/o. Tatoba Nagpure,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Kanhalgaon,
Tah. And Distt. Nagpur. : RESPONDENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. M. Kadukar, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellants 1 & 2
Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for appellant no. 3
Shri A. R. Patil, Advocate for respondent
FIRST APPEAL No.880 OF 2009
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:59 :::
5/9
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Irrigation,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
through its Secretary.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Pench Project, Office of the Collector,
Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
through the Executive Engineer,
Lower Vena Project, Division No.2,
Nagpur. : APPELLANTS
...VERSUS...
Sau. Pushpabai w/o. Girdhar Nagpure,
Aged about 50 years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o. Kanhalgaon,
Tah. And Distt. Nagpur. : RESPONDENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. M. Kadukar, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellants 1 & 2
Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for appellant no. 3
Shri A. R. Patil, Advocate for respondent
FIRST APPEAL No.1359 OF 2008
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Irrigation,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
through its Secretary.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Pench Project, Office of the Collector,
Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
through the Executive Engineer,
Lower Vena Project, Division No.2,
Nagpur. : APPELLANTS
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:24:59 :::
6/9
...VERSUS...
Ghanshyam s/o. Namdeorao Nagpure,
Aged 51 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Kanhalgaon, Tah. Nagpur (Rural),
Distt. Nagpur. : RESPONDENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Mrinal Naik, Asst. Govt. Pleader for appellants 1 & 2
Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for appellant no. 3
Shri A. R. Patil, Advocate for respondent
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 14
SEPT. 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri A. M. Kadukar and Ms Mrinal Naik, learned
Assistant Government Pleaders for appellants no. 1 and 2; Shri V.
G. Palshikar, learned counsel for appellant no. 3 and Shri A. R.
Patil, learned counsel for respondent in all these appeals.
2. The reference applications in all these appeals under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were filed in or about
January 1997. At that time, Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation (for short, the "VIDC") was not in existence. It was
constituted later on and it came into being in March 1997.
However, it appears, it was not brought to the notice of the
Reference Court about establishment of VIDC as an entity separate
and distinct from the state of Maharashtra having charge of and
control over the irrigation projects in Vidarbha region. The
consequence was that, the VIDC was not joined as party-
respondent to the reference applications. The revision applications
were thus decided in the absence of newly formed VIDC, the
acquiring body. In other words, the reference applications were
decided without this acquiring body having had an opportunity of
contesting the claim and participating in the proceedings.
3. On request, leave is granted to Shri V. G. Palshikar,
learned counsel to correct the description of appellant no. 3 by
adding "VIDC" and he is allowed to appear for the VIDC. He
undertakes to file memo of appearance for the VIDC.
4. In this background of facts, it is contended by Shri V. G.
Palshikar, learned counsel for the acquiring body that all these
matters are required to be remitted back to the Reference Court for
decision afresh. For this submission, he places his reliance upon
Abdul Rasak & ors v. Kerala Water Authority & ors reported in
(2002) 3 SCC 228 and Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation v. Santosh Janba Warghane & anr reported in 2017
(4) Mh. L. J. 64. He submits that no prejudice is going to be
caused to the claimants in these cases as all of them have been
permitted to withdraw the decretal amount on security.
5. Shri Patil, learned counsel for the claimants submits that
position of law in this regard is now well settled which can be seen
from the aforesaid cases pressed into service by learned counsel for
the VIDC. Therefore, he submits that appropriate orders be passed
in these cases. Similar is the submission of learned Assistant
Government Pleaders appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2.
6. What has been contended by learned counsel for the
acquiring body is exactly what is precisely laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Abdul Rasak and Santosh (supra).
Therefore, it has to be said that the issue involved in these appeals
is squarely covered by these two judgments and it then follows that
all these matters would have to be remitted back to the Reference
Court for decision in accordance with law.
7. In the result, all these appeals are allowed. The
impugned judgments and awards are quashed and set aside. The
reference applications are remitted back to the Reference Court for
decision afresh in accordance with law from the stage of evidence.
It is made clear that the evidence already tendered by the parties
shall be valid and taken into consideration by the Reference Court.
The parties shall be at liberty to adduce further evidence if they
choose to do so. The claimants having been permitted to withdraw
the decretal amount on furnishing security/surety, shall be bound
by the same and shall accordingly abide by the final decree that will
now be passed afresh by the Reference Court. The Reference Court
shall allow the VIDC to come on record as party-respondent. Such
amendment shall be carried out within one week from the date of
appearance. The Reference Court shall dispose of all the
applications within six months from the date of appearance of the
parties before it. Parties shall appear before the Reference Court on
3.10.2017. Parties shall cooperate with the Reference Court in
timely disposal of the matters and no adjournment shall be granted
except in cases where it is necessary to do so for the reasons beyond
control of any of the parties. Appeals stand disposed of accordingly
with no order as to costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J
joshi
