Bombay High Court
Pandurang Ranganth Kulkurni vs The State Of Maharashtra Throug ... on 15 January, 2018
Bench: M.S. Sonak
(1) 1- CRA 209 of 2017 & ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.209 OF 2017
1) Shripati s/o Sadhu Kale died
through his legal heirs
i) Prayagbaie w/o Shripati Kale
Age: 75 years, Occu.: Nil
ii) Sau.Mangalbaie w/o Laxman
Jamgaonkar
Age: 60 years, Occu.: Agriculture
iii) Sau.Sumanbaie Madhukar Khune
Age: 59 years, Occu.: Agriculture
iv) Shri Hanmant s/o Shripati Kale
Age: 56 years, Occu.: Agriculture
v) Kamalbaie Shivaji Mali
Age: 52 years, Occu.: Agriculture
vi) Kalavati Yadav Hagare
Age: 50 years, Occu.: Agriculture
vii) Kanta Ashok Yadav
Age: 50 years, Occu.: Agriculture
All above R/o.Kati, Tq.Tuljapur,
Dist.Osmanabad. ..Applicants
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 01:08:17 :::
(2) 1- CRA 209 of 2017 & ors.
1) The State of Maharashtra, through
The Collector, Osmanabad.
2) The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition, Manjara Project,
Osmanabad. ..Respondents
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR
OSMANABADAND ANOTHER
...
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.210 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.211 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.213 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.214 OF 2017
...
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr.Ganesh V. Patil
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr.A.M.Phule
(In CRA No.209/2017)
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr.S.P.Deshmukh
(In CRA Nos.210/2017 and 214/2017)
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr.K.N.Lokhande
(In CRA Nos.211/2017 and 213/2017)
...
CORAM : M.S.SONAK, J.
DATE : 15th JANUARY, 2018
(3) 1- CRA 209 of 2017 & ors.
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1) Heard Mr.Ganesh Patil, learned counsel for the
applicants and the learned Assistant Government Pleaders
Mr.A.M.Phule, Mr.S.P.Deshmukh and Mr.K.N.Lokhande for
the respondents in the respective matters.
2) Rule. With consent of the parties and at the
request of learned counsel, rule is made returnable
forthwith.
3) These are revision applications taken out in terms
of Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said
Act), as applicable to the State of Maharashtra, to
question order dated 21.9.2017 made by the Deputy
Collector (Land Acquisition) rejecting the applicants'
application seeking reference under Section 18 of the
said Act, for non-payment of Court fees within the
prescribed period.
(4) 1- CRA 209 of 2017 & ors.
4) In these cases, there is no dispute that the
applications seeking reference were made within the
prescribed period of limitation. However, alongwith the
applications, the requisite Court fees were not submitted
by the applicants. Instead, the applicants had made a
prayer to the Deputy Collector to refer the matters to
the Reference Court and that the applicants would pay the
Court fees before the Reference Court.
5) Mr.Ganesh Patil learned counsel submits that without
any intimation to the applicants and without any
compliance of principles of natural justice and fair
opportunity, impugned order came to be made rejecting the
applications for reference.
6) Although, in the normal course, Court fees are
required to be accompanied the application seeking the
references, in these cases, some opportunity was required
to be given to the applicants before rejecting their
(5) 1- CRA 209 of 2017 & ors.
applications for reference. The Deputy Collector could
have made a specific order granting fixed time to pay
the Court fees and upon failure to do so, could have
perhaps rejected the applications. In any case, the
Deputy Collector should have atleast disposed of the
applications/requests for payment of Court fees before
the Reference Court. Since, this does not appear to have
been done in the present case, it is only appropriate
that the impugned orders are set aside and the applicants
are granted an opportunity to pay the Court fees as a
precondition for reference.
7) In all these cases, the impugned Orders came to be
made without offering opportunity to the applicants to
show cause why their applications should not be rejected
for non-payment of Court fees. In case such
opportunities were granted, in all probabilities the
applicants would have made good the deficiency within
some reasonable period. This is yet another reason to set
(6) 1- CRA 209 of 2017 & ors.
aside the impugned orders.
8) Mr.Ganesh Patil learned counsel for the applicants
states that the applicants shall, within a period of four
weeks from today, pay the necessary Court fees.
9) If the necessary Court fees are deposited with the
Deputy Collector within a period of four weeks from
today, the impugned order dated 21.9.2017 shall stand set
aside. The Deputy Collector shall then make a reference
to the Reference Court in terms of Section 18 of the said
Act within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of the Court fees.
10) However, if no Court fees are paid within four weeks
from today, then these revision applications shall be
deserved to have been dismissed without any further
reference to this Court.
(7) 1- CRA 209 of 2017 & ors.
11) The revision applications are disposed of in the
aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
12) All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this
order.
[M.S.SONAK, J.]
SPT/1- CRA 209 of 2017 & ors.
