Bombay High Court
Nagnath Bhaguram Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 5 August, 2021
Bench: M. G. Sewlikar
{1} WP 8296 OF 2020.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8296 OF 2020
Nagnath S/o. Bhaguram Kamble
Age: 50 years, Occu.: Agril.
R/o.Kalkoti, Tq.Chakur, Dist.Latur. ..Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Ofcer,
Swarna Project, Latur.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division at Latur. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Gajanan K. Sontakke
AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Shri A.A.Jagatkar
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Shri S.G.Sangle
...
CORAM : M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.
DATE: 5th August, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally with consent of the parties.
3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the Judgment and order
dated 8th January, 2014 passed by the Reference Court in LAR
::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2021 22:46:53 :::
{2} WP 8296 OF 2020.
No.1 of 2003 whereby reference came to be dismissed as
petitioner failed to adduce any evidence in the Reference Court.
4. Facts leading to this petition are that land of the petitioner
Gut No.47 ad-measuring 72R at village Kalkoti, Tq.Chakur,
Dist.Latur has been acquired. Compensation was awarded to the
petitioner. Since the petitioner was dissatisfied with the amount
of compensation, reference was made under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Latur.
5. During the pendency of the reference, petitioner did not
adduce any evidence despite giving ample opportunities.
Therefore, Reference Court forfeited the right of petitioner to
adduce evidence. Thereafter also, petitioner did not lead
evidence before the Reference Court as a result of which
Reference Court dismissed the reference for failure to lead
evidence by the petitioner. The Reference Court considered the
material collected by the Special Land Acquisition Ofcer (SLAO)
and dismissed the reference. This order is impugned in this
petition.
::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2021 22:46:53 :::
{3} WP 8296 OF 2020.
6. Shri G.K.Sontakke, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner could not adduce evidence before
the learned Reference Court because of the circumstances
beyond his control. He submits that entire land of the petitioner
has been acquired and he has been rendered landless. He has,
therefore, prayed for allowing the petition.
7. Shri A.A.Jagatkar, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2-
State and Shri S.G.Sangle, learned counsel for respondent No.3-
Acquiring Body submitted that evidence of the petitioner was
closed on 30th January, 2012. Thereafter also petitioner did not
adduce any evidence as a result of which, the Reference Court
was left with no other alternative than to dismiss the reference.
8. Shri Jagatkar, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2-
State and Shri Sangle, learned counsel for respondent No.3
submitted that if this Court is inclined to allow the petition, it
should be done only on condition that the petitioner will not be
entitled to interest from the date of dismissal of the reference till
the date of order of this Court in case the Reference Court
enhances the compensation.
9. Learned Reference Court has decided the reference taking
into consideration the material collected by the SLAO, which is
::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2021 22:46:53 :::
{4} WP 8296 OF 2020.
impermissible in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Khazan Singh vs. Union of India [2002(2)
SCC 242].
10. Considering the fact that land of the petitioner has been
acquired and according to the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner he has become landless, I deem it
appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner. Shri
Sontakke, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he
will adduce the evidence before the Reference Court and will
endeavour to assist the Court in disposal of the reference within
a specified period.
11. Shri Jagatkar, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
Shri Sangle, learned counsel for respondent No.3 placed reliance
on the case of Ramanlal Deochand Shah vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another [AIR 2013 SC 3452] in support of
their contention that the petitioner will not be permitted to claim
interest from the date of Judgment of the Reference Court till the
date of order of this Court.
12. In paragraph No.14 of the Judgment of Ramanlal Deochand
Shah (supra) following observations are made;
::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2021 22:46:53 :::
{5} WP 8296 OF 2020.
"14. The failure or the omission to lead evidence to prove
the claim appears in the above context to be a case of some
kind of misconception about the legal requirement as to
evidence needed to prove cases of enhancement of
compensation. We do not in that view see any reason to
deny another opportunity to the landowners to prove their
cases by adducing evidence in support of their claim for
enhancement. Since, however, this opportunity is being
granted ex debito justitiae, we deem it fit to direct that if
the Reference Court eventually comes to the conclusion that
a higher amount was due and payable to the appellant-
owners, such higher amount including solatium due thereon
would not earn interest for the period between the date of
the judgment of the Reference Court and the date of this
order. These appeals are with that direction allowed, the
judgments and orders impugned in the same modified to
the extent that while the enhancement order by the
Reference Court shall stand set aside, the matters, shall
stand remanded to the Reference Court for a fresh disposal
in accordance with law after giving to the landowners
opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claims for
higher compensation. No costs."
13. Shri Sangle, learned counsel for respondent No.3
submitted that this Court in First Appeal No.703 of 1998, relying
on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramanlal Deochand Shah (supra) has taken a view that the
claimant shall not be entitled to interest on enhanced
compensation for the period between the date of Judgment of
::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2021 22:46:53 :::
{6} WP 8296 OF 2020.
the Reference Court and the date of order of this Court.
I am inclined to take similar view.
14. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ramanlal Deochand Shah (supra), the
petitioner will not be entitled to interest from the date of the
Judgment of the Reference Court till the date of this order in case
amount of compensation is enhanced by the Reference Court. In
this view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to pass the
following order:
ORDER
I) Writ Petition is allowed.
II) The Judgment and order dated 8 th January, 2014
passed by the Extra Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, District
Latur in LAR No.1 of 2003 is set aside.
III) LAR No.1 of 2003 is restored to file.
IV) The Reference Court shall permit the petitioner to
adduce evidence.
V) The Reference Court shall also permit the State and
Acquiring Body to adduce evidence.
{7} WP 8296 OF 2020.
VI) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Reference
Court on 13th September, 2021.
VII) The Reference Court shall dispose the LAR within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of the writ by
the Reference Court.
VIII) Petitioner will not be entitled to interest from the date
of Judgment of the Reference Court i.e. 8 th January, 2014 till
the date of this order i.e. 5th August, 2021, in case Reference
Court enhances the compensation.
IX) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
( M.G.SEWLIKAR )
JUDGE
SPT
