Bombay High Court
Gulam Askar Gulam Sarwar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 9 August, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
1 CRA-169-2015.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 169 OF 2015
Gulam Askar S/o Gulam Sarwar ... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents
....
Ms Madhaveshwari S. Mhase, Advocate for applicant
Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for respondent No.1
Smt. R. D. Reddy, Advocate for respondent No.2
Mr. H. M. Shaikh and Mr. S. U. Shaikh, Advocates for respondent
Nos. 3-A and 3-B
Mr. S. S. Mane, Advocate for respondent No.4
Mr. M. L. Dharashive, Advocate for respondent No. 7 and 8
....
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.
DATED : 09th AUGUST, 2021
PER COURT :-
. The challenge in this revision application is to the
judgment and order dated 26.03.2008 passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Latur, in Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.)
No.345 of 1982.
2. Heard.
The applicant herein claims to be one of the sons of
deceased Gulam Sarwar, whose land came to be acquired for State
1 of 6
2 CRA-169-2015.doc
Transport bus stand and bus depot, at Ausa, way back in October
1981. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the original land owner -
Gulam had preferred L.A.R. No.345 of 1982. The Reference Court
dismissed the reference with the following reasons:
"12. ISSUE NO. 1, 2, 4 TO 6 :- The earlier evidence
adduced by the claimant cannot be read in evidence
unless opportunity is given to the respondent no.2 to
cross examine the witnesses of the claimant. The legal
heirs of the claimant have failed to turn to the Court
which goes to show that they are least interested in
prosecuting the reference. When the evidence on record
cannot be read in evidence then it is to be held that there
is no evidence on record to prove the claim of the
claimant in the reference petition. In the result, I hold
that the claimant failed to prove the issues in respect of
market price of acquired land on the date of notification
u/sec.4 of the Act and that the L.A.O. has awarded
inadequate compensation to them and as such the
reference is liable to be rejected. In the result, it is
rejected and following order is passed."
3. The record indicates that on the demise of land owner
Gulam, his widow and sons had come on record as his legal
representatives in L.A.R. No.345 of 1982. Learned Advocate for the
applicant would submit that all was not well among the sons of
deceased Gulam. Wrong name of the applicant was given. The
notices issued by the Reference Court, therefore, could not be served
on the applicant herein. This Court, while allowing the application
2 of 6
3 CRA-169-2015.doc
for condonation of delay in preferring the present application had
observed thus:
"2. It is the contention of the applicant that he is legal
heir of original claimant - Gulam Sarwar Abdul Nabi. It is
contended that after the death of Gulam Sarwar during
pendency of the proceeding notices were sent on Court
motion, but notice to the present applicant was never
served and present applicant had no knowledge about the
pendency of the proceeding. It appears that notice was
served on some of the legal heirs, but no evidence is given
to substantiate the claim. Ultimately the matter came to
be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that there is no sufficient cause for condoning
the delay.
3. This Court has gone through the copy of Roznama
produced along with the present matter which is of LAR
No.345/1982. There is force in the aforesaid contentions
made by the learned counsel for the applicant. There is
apparently some case to fight out and so, this Court holds
that sufficient cause is shown.
4. In the result, the application is allowed. Delay is
condoned."
4. The Reference Court dismissed the reference on account
of failure of the legal representatives of the original land owner to
lead evidence. It is a settled legal position that land acquisition
reference cannot be dismissed in default. If some evidence is on
record, the Reference Court is expected to appreciate the same and
pass the award on merits. The matter appears to have long history.
The L.A.R. No.345 of 1982 had already been allowed. The award
3 of 6
4 CRA-169-2015.doc
passed therein was challenged in appeal before this Court. The
appeal was allowed since the acquiring body was not a party before
the Reference Court. As such, the proceedings in L.A.R. No.345 of
1982 came to be reopened. It also appears that the original
owner/claimant had received amount of compensation offered by
the S.L.A.O. and even enhanced vide judgment and award dated
12.08.1988 passed in L.A.R. No.345 of 1982.
5. Smt. Ranjana Reddy, learned Advocate for respondent
No.2 - M.S.R.T.C., would submit that the applicant and respondent
Nos. 4 to 8 had intentionally avoided to receive the notice in L.A.R.
No.345 of 1982. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 had appeared suo-motu.
The Reference Court took all the efforts to call all the concerned
parties. The Rozanama indicate that the legal representatives of the
deceased land owner were not interested in the proceedings. The
applicant had knowledge of the judgment passed in the L.A.R. He,
however, took years to approach this Court. The revision application
is not maintainable on account of inordinate and deliberate delay.
According to the learned Advocate, it is a matter of public money. A
person who slept over his right, has no equity in his favour. She,
therefore, urged for rejection of the application.
4 of 6
5 CRA-169-2015.doc
6. Since the applicant being legal representative (son) of
the original land owner, is entitled to pursue the land reference
preferred by his father and there being no opportunity for him to
lead evidence in the said matter for want of notice of the said
proceeding, the impugned award needs to be set aside.
7. In the result, the Civil Revision Application is allowed.
The matter is remanded back to the Reference Court to decide it
afresh on merits after giving the applicant and his siblings, an
opportunity to lead evidence.
8. The applicants/claimants shall not be entitled for
interest on enhanced compensation, if any, from the date 21.07.2004
when the reference was remanded back vide order passed in First
Appeal No.84 of 1990 to the date of this order, since the applicant
took years to pursue this application.
9. The amount which has already been paid, should be
adjusted at the end of the proceedings.
10. The Reference Court is requested to decide the Reference
within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of
5 of 6
6 CRA-169-2015.doc
this order. He need not issue notices of the said proceedings to the
applicant and the respondents herein. The parties are directed to
appear before the Reference Court on 27th September, 2021.
[ R. G. AVACHAT, J. ]
SMS
6 of 6
