Bombay High Court
The Executive Engineer, Lower ... vs Taiyab Ali Ahmad Ali And Others on 21 September, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
(Judgment) 2109 FA 542-2015 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 542/2015
The Executive Engineer,
Lower Wardha Project Division,
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Wardha. APPELLANT
.....VERSUS.....
1] Taiyab Ali Ahmad Ali,
Aged about 74 years,
2] Mohammad Ali Ahmad Ali,
Aged about 68 years,
3] Saiyad Gani Ahmad Ali,
Aged about 64 years,
1 to 3 are Agriculturists,
R/o. Pipari (Pargothan),
Tq. Arvi, Distt. Wardha.
4] State of Maharashtra,
Collector, Wardha.
5] Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Wardha.
6] Amjad Khan Rahim Khan Pathan,
Aged about 38 years, Occu: Labour,
7] Javed Khan Rahim Khan Pathan,
Aged about 35 years, Occu: Labour,
Both R/o. Pimpri (Pargaonthan),
Tah. Arvi, District Wardha. RESPONDENTS
Shri V.G. Palshikar, counsel for appellant.
Shri D.S. Lambat, counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Ms. R.V. Kalia, AGP for respondent nos.4 and 5.
Shri V.N. Patre, counsel for respondent nos.6 and 7.
::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 23:37:33 :::
(Judgment) 2109 FA 542-2015 2/6
CORAM: S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Taken up for final disposal by consent, in
view of the short question of fact and law being
involved in the First Appeal. There is no need to have
any paper book on record of the appeal as record and
proceedings have been received.
2] The question that this appeal gives rise to
is,
"Whether the award passed by the
reference court is vitiated, due to non-joinder of
necessary parties?".
3] Upon hearing Shri Palshikar, learned
counsel for the appellant, Shri Lambat, learned
counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3, the claimants in
the reference application, Ms. Ritu Kalia, learned AGP
for the respondent nos.4 & 5 and Shri Patre, learned
counsel for the respondent nos.6 and 7, the original
(Judgment) 2109 FA 542-2015 3/6
claimants in Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act (in
short, "L.A. Act") award, I find that the point so raised
must be answered as in the affirmative.
4] Perusal of the Record and Proceedings
discloses that the respondent nos.6 and 7, are the
legal heirs of one Haseena Bee, who was, admittedly,
sister of the respondent nos.1 to 3. It is further seen
from the record that Haseena Bee was a party to the
proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer and
under the award passed by him under Section 11 of
the L.A. Act. It is further seen that she had been
granted compensation also by the Land Acquisition
Officer, along with the respondent nos.1 to 3. It is
further seen that the reference application, however,
under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, was moved only by
the respondent nos.1 to 3. Deceased Haseena Bee did
not move any such application, may be, she was
satisfied with what she was granted under Section 11
of the L.A. Act award passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer. But, that would not mean and should not
have been understood as giving a right to the
(Judgment) 2109 FA 542-2015 4/6
respondent nos.1 to 3 to exclude deceased Haseena
Bee or other legal heirs from the proceedings that
they got initiated under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. If
the issue regarding determination of higher market
value of the acquired land was involved in the
reference application, such an issue could not have
been decided in the absence of Haseena Bee and if she
was dead, her legal heirs, had an equal say in the
matter. This fact, however, was ignored by the
reference court. The reference court could have at
least directed the respondent nos.1 to 3 to join the
legal heirs of the deceased Haseena Bee, who are the
respondent nos.6 and 7 here, as party respondents to
the reference application. That was also not done by
the reference court. The result is that the entire award
passed by the reference court under Section 18 of the
L.A. Act has stood vitiated and I find it to be no award
in the eye of law.
5] The learned counsel for both sides
including learned AGP for the State, are also in
agreement over this fact.
(Judgment) 2109 FA 542-2015 5/6
6] In view of above, I find that this appeal
deserves to be allowed and the reference application
deserves to be remitted back to the reference court for
it's decision afresh, in accordance with law, with
further necessary directions. The point is answered
accordingly.
7] Appeal is allowed.
8] The impugned judgment and order are
quashed and set aside. The reference application is
remanded back to the reference court for it's trial
afresh and disposal, in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months
from the date of the appearance of the parties.
9] The respondent nos.6 and 7 shall be joined
as respondents to the application filed under Section
18 of the L.A. Act and necessary amendment be
carried out by the respondent nos.1 to 3, within two
weeks from the date of their appearance.
(Judgment) 2109 FA 542-2015 6/6
10] The respondent nos.6 and 7 shall be
permitted to file their reply to the reference
application and shall also be permitted to adduce
evidence. The other parties to the reference
application shall be permitted to adduce additional
evidence.
11] The evidence adduced by the parties, old
and fresh, shall be considered by the reference court
for deciding the reference application on merits. The
reference court shall also record it's finding on the
question of apportionment of the compensation
amount between all the claimants, if the need arises.
12] Parties to appear before the reference court
on 30/10/2017.
13] No costs.
JUDGE
Yenurkar
