Shri Gulab S/O Dudharam Borkar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7350 Bom

                                              1




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



Civil Revision Application No.  121 of 2017 

Applicant              :          Gulab son of Dudhram Borkar, aged about

                                  65 years, Occ:  Agriculturist, resident of 

                                  Navegaon, Post Chinchal, Tahsil Pauni, 

                                  District Bhandara

                                  versus

Respondents            :           1)  The State of Maharashtra, through 

Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya,

Mumbai-32

2) The Chairman, Vidarbha Irrigation

Development Corporation, Sinchan Bhawan,

Civil Lines, Nagpur

3) Executive Engineer, Gosi Khurd,

Rehabilitation Department, Bhandara

4) The Collector, Office of the Collector,

Bhandara

5) Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 9,

B & I. P. Bhandara

Shri D. C. Chahande, Advocate for applicant

Shri A. M. Kadukar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents no. 1,

4 and 5.

Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for respondents no. 2 and 3

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 20th September 2017

Oral Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Rule. Shri A. M.

Kadukar, learned Assistant Government Pleader accepts notice on rule for

respondents no. 1, 4 and 5 while Shri V. G. Palshikar, learned counsel

waives it for respondents no. 2 and 3. Since the issue involved is in

narrow compass, rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Upon hearing both

sides, the only point that arises for consideration in this revision

application is, whether this is a fit case for remand to the Reference Court

or not.

3. In view of the consistent view taken by this Court since the

time the judgment rendered in the case of Kawadu Mahadeo Bansod v.

State of Maharashtra reported in 2004 (1) Mh. L. J. 980 till recently in

the case of Subhash Babulal Rajput & anr v. State of Maharashtra &

ors reported in 2012 (2) Mh. L. J. 395, this matter deserves to be

remitted back to the Reference Court for a decision afresh. The reason is

obvious. By the impugned Award, the Reference Court has decided the

Reference Application only on the basis that there has been failure on the

part of the applicant to adduce any evidence to prove his entitlement for

enhancement of compensation. While doing so, the Reference Court did

not give any adjudication as to whether or not on the basis of evidence

available before it, the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for

the acquired property which is the house property in the present case, was

correct or otherwise. The question is, therefore, answered as in the

affirmative.

4. The revision application is allowed and the Reference

Application is remitted back to the Reference Court for a decision afresh

in accordance with law. However, it is clarified that the applicant shall

not be allowed to claim any interest for the enhanced compensation, if

any, for the delayed period i.e. from 21.4.2010 till 5.9.2017. Copy of

order dated 5th September 2017 passed by this Court in CAC No. 58 of

2015 shall be placed before the Reference Court by the applicant. Parties

to appear before the Reference Court on 9 th October 2017. Reference

Court shall dispose of the Reference Application within three months from

the appearance of the parties. Parties may adduce evidence if they desire

to do so and shall cooperate with the Reference Court in expeditious

disposal of the Reference Application. Rule made absolute in the above

terms. No costs.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi