Bombay High Court
Madanlal Mohanlal Mantri Died ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 1 February, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
WP.1134 of 2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1134 OF 2020
Madanlal Mohanlal Mantri (died)
through His Legal Representatives,
1) Mukundas s/o. Madanlal Mantri
Age : 59 years, Occ. Business,
r/o. Mantri Galli, Beed
2) Premalata w/o. Madanlal Somani,
Age : 65 years, Occ. Household,
r/o. At Post Ter (Dhoki),
Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad
3) Omprakash s/o. Madanlal Mantri,
Age : 57 years, Occ. Business,
r/o. Mantri Galli, Beed
4) Alknanda s/o. Hanumandas Rathi,
Age : 54 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Motinangar, Latur,
(Applicant nos.2 to 4 are through
GPA holder) ..Petitioners
Vs.
1) State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector,
Beed
2) Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division Beed,
Tq. and Dist. Beed ..Respondents
----
Mr.R.R.Chandak, Advocate for petitioners
Mr.Y.G.Gujrati, AGP for respondent no.1
----
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2021 18:23:43 :::
2 WP.1134 of 2020
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 01, 2021
FINAL ORDER :-
The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order
dated 30.04.2015 passed by learned District Judge-3, Beed,
whereby the land acquisition reference preferred by the
petitioners, has been disposed of confirming the award bearing
No.LNQ/SR/26/96 passed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer (SLAO).
2. I have heard Mr.Chandak, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners. He would submit that the land of deceased
- Madanlal came to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.
He was paid inadequate compensation. He had, therefore,
preferred a reference for enhancement of compensation.
Thereafter, Madanlal died on 24.05.2006. Learned counsel
would submit that the petitioners herein are legal
representatives of deceased - Madanlal. The petitioners had
no knowledge about pendency of the reference and hence, they
could not pursue the reference after death of their father. He
submits that the Advocate appearing on behalf of the
3 WP.1134 of 2020
petitioners before the reference court, did not inform them
progress of the matter. Learned counsel submits that when the
petitioners got knowledge about the decision of the reference,
they moved present Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the
judgments and orders passed by this court in following Writ
Petitions:-
1) Writ Petition No.12795 of 2019 (Walmik s/o.
Trimbak Tupe Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.) and
other connected petitions decided on 17.01.2020);
2) Writ Petition No.3572 of 2020 (Narshing Vithoba
Jagtap Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.) and other
connected petitions decided on 04.03.2020.
According to the learned counsel, the petitioners would lead
evidence in the LAR. They be given an opportunity of hearing.
LAR could not have been disposed of by the reference Court
observing the petitioners to have failed to adduce evidence.
Learned counsel, therefore, ultimately, urged for setting aside
the impugned order.
4 WP.1134 of 2020
4. Learned AGP would, on the other hand, submit that
the petitioners were grossly negligent. There is even delay of
over two years to approach this Court after the decision of the
reference Court. If this Court is pleased to allow the petition,
the petitioners may not be held to be entitled for interest for
the period from the date of decision in the LAR to the date of
filing of this Writ Petition.
5. In the case of Narayan Deorao Gore (died) through
L.Rs. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011(3)Mh.L.J. 592, this Court
has held that the LAR should be decided on merits. The
claimant must be given sufficient and full opportunity to put
forth his case. The claim need not be discarded on technicality
of not adducing documentary evidence.
6. In the similar facts and circumstances of the cases
referred to herein above (WP 12795 of 2019 and ors.), this
Court allowed those petitions setting aside the orders
impugned therein. Similar treatment is, therefore, required to
be given to present petitioners. The petitioners, however, would
not be entitled for interest on the amount enhanced, if any,
5 WP.1134 of 2020
in the LAR, from the date of disposal of the LAR confirming the
order of the SLAO i.e. 30.04.2015, to the date of filing of this
Writ Petition i.e. 22.11.2017.
7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed in
the following terms:-
(i) The order impugned in this Writ Petition is set aside.
The LAR is restored to the file of the LAR Court. The petitioners
shall appear before the LAR Court on 20.02.2021.
(ii) The petitioners shall tender their affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief before the L.A.R. Court, on or before
20.02.2021.
(iii) The L.A.R. Court shall then decide said proceedings
at the earliest and preferably, on or before 31.12.2021.
(iv) The petitioners shall not be entitled for interest
component, in the event of enhancement of compensation,
from the date of disposal of the LAR confirming the order of the
SLAO i.e. 30.04.2015, to the date of filing of this Writ Petition
i.e. 22.11.2017.
6 WP.1134 of 2020
(v) In the event the petitioners unnecessarily delay the
proceedings and do not lead evidence as directed, the L.A.R.
Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders.
[R.G. AVACHAT, J.]
KBP
