Bombay High Court
Shantaram Adhar Patiland Another vs The Special Land Acquisition ... on 20 August, 2021
Bench: M. G. Sewlikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
963 WRIT PETITION NO. 4730 OF 2020
SHANTARAM ADHAR PATIL AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER JALGAON
Shri. A. B. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner
Smt. D. S. Jape, APP for the respondent/State
CORAM : M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.
DATED : 20th August, 2021
PER COURT :-
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India thereby challenging the judgment and
order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Jalgaon dated 19th November, 2011 whereby reference is
dismissed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land Gut
Nos. 64/1 and 75/1 have been acquired by the Government
for the purpose of approach road on Kadji bridge district
Jalgaon. The learned Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)
awarded compensation. Being dissatisfied with the
WP4730.20.odt 1 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2021 09:48:40 :::
compensation awarded, petitioner preferred reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement in
the amount of compensation.
3. Issues were framed in the reference. Reference
was of the year 1991. Petitioner did not lead evidence for a
period of 20 years. Despite giving several opportunities,
petitioner on one or the other pretext avoided to give
evidence with the result that the learned Joint Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Amalner closed the evidence of the
petitioner and posted for judgment. Learned Civil Judge
Senior Division, Amalner on 19th November, 2011 decided
the reference relying on the observations made in the
award. The learned Reference Court observed that the
petitioner has not adduced any evidence. The applicant
remained absent despite giving sufficient opportunity to file
his evidence. The applicant repeatedly remained absent and
did not take any steps to adduce evidence. It further
observed that the petitioner remained absent for argument .
Observing thus, learned Reference Court dismissed the
reference.
WP4730.20.odt 2 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2021 09:48:40 :::
4. Heard Shri. Kale, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt. Jape, learned AGP for the State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri. Kale
submits that counsel for the petitioner did not intimate the
petitioner about the date fixed in the matter. He submitted
that it was impermissible for the Reference Court to decide
the reference without recording evidence. He has therefore
sought intervention of this Court. Learned counsel Shri. Kale
further submits that notice of Reference Court was not given
to the petitioner. For all these reasons he prays for setting
aside the impugned order.
6. Learned AGP Smt. Jape opposed the petition. She
submitted vehemently that despite giving several
opportunities petitioner did not lead evidence and now he
cannot turn around and say that opportunity was not given.
She submits that if this Court comes to the conclusion that
petition needs to be allowed, it may be allowed only on
condition that petitioner shall not be entitled to interest for
WP4730.20.odt 3 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2021 09:48:40 :::
the period from the date of dismissal of the reference till this
petition is restored.
7. Petitioner has placed reliance on the case of
Diwakar Prabhakar Chopade Vs. Sub-divisional Officer, (Land
Acquisition Officer), Aurangabad and others reported in
2019(6) Mh.L.J., 591. In this decision Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court has held that reference under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act in the light of the mandate as laid down
by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Khazan Singh Vs. Union
of India has to be decided by the Civil Court on the basis of
material before it on merits.
8. The learned trial Court observed that applicant
did not lead evidence and did not take any steps to adduce
evidence.
9. Smt. Jape, learned counsel placed reliance on the
case of Ramanlal Deochand Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra
and another (AIR 2013 SC 3452) for the proposition that the
petitioner will not be permitted to claim interest from the
WP4730.20.odt 4 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2021 09:48:40 :::
date of judgment of Reference Court till the date of order of
this Court. It has been held thus :-
"12. Suffice it to say that in the facts and
circumstances of the present case no evidence
having been adduced by the defendants-
respondents, whether documentary or
otherwise, there was no question of the
appellant relying upon such non-existent
evidence. Merely because some documents
were referred to in the Draft Award by the
Collector, did not make the said documents
admissible by them to enable the plaintiffs to
refer to or rely upon the same in support of a
possible enhancement. If a document upon
which the plaintiffs placed reliance was
available, there was no reason why the same
should not have been produced or relied upon.
Inasmuch as no such attempt was made by the
plaintiffs, they were not entitled to claim any
enhancement."
10. Learned counsel Shri. Kale undertakes that in six
months time petitioner will lead the evidence and assist the
Court in disposing of the reference. In view of this following
order is passed.
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) Judgment and order dated 19th November, 2011
passed by the Reference Court is set aside.
(iii) Reference is restored to file.
WP4730.20.odt 5 of 6
(iv) The Reference Court shall permit the petitioner
and State to lead evidence.
(v) Petitioner shall not be entitled to interest for the
period from the date of dismissal of reference i.e.
19th November, 2011 till the date of this order.
(vi) Learned trial Court shall dispose of the reference
within a period of six months.
[M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.]
ssp
WP4730.20.odt 6 of 6
