Bombay High Court
The Ex. Engineer, Waghur Dam ... vs Chindhu Govinda Patil (Ghodke) ... on 26 February, 2021
Bench: M. G. Sewlikar
{1} CA 1058 OF 2021 & ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
41 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1058 OF 2021
IN FAST/35105/2019
THE EX. ENGINEER, WAGHUR DAM SECTION, JALGAON AND ORS
VERSUS
CHINDHU GOVINDA PATIL (GHODKE) AND ORS
...
Advocate for Applicants : Shri Suresh D.Dhongade
Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 : Shri Vinod Patil
...
WITH CA/846/2021 IN FAST/35105/2019
WITH CA/845/2021 IN FAST/35105/2019
WITH CA/14690/2019 IN FAST/35105/2019
WITH CA/1059/2021 IN FAST/35105/2019
WITH CA/14691/2019 IN FAST/35105/2019
WITH CA/6871/2020 IN FAST/35105/2019
WITH CA/5284/2020 IN FAST/35105/2019
...
CORAM : M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.
DATE: 26th February, 2021
PER COURT:-
1. Heard Shri S.D.Dhongade, learned counsel for the applicant
Acquiring Body. He states that Smt.Pushpabai W/o.Vitthal Patil,
one of the claimants, died before passing the award in the
Reference. He submits that since the Reference was against a
dead person, the award be set aside and the matter be
remanded to the trial Court for decision. He submits in the
alternative that the legal heirs of the deceased be brought on
record.
2. Shri Vinod Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3
clarifies that the Reference was made under Section 18 of the
{2} CA 1058 OF 2021 & ORS
Land Acquisition Act to the Collector on 07-06-2005 and the said
Pushpabai died in the year 2008. He states that the legal heirs of
Pushpabai were already on record during the pendency of the
Reference. Therefore, the only thing the claimants were required
to do was to make an application for deletion of name of
Pushpabai. That seems to have not been done. According to
him, that does not make Judgment against a dead person.
3. On perusal of the application for Reference, copy of which
is tendered across the Bar by Shri Patil, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.2 and 3, it shows that Pushpabai was claimant
No.4 whereas her sons by the name of Mukunda S/o. Vitthal Patil
and Arjun S/o. Vitthal Patil were the claimant Nos.2 and 3. Since
they were already on record and according to Shri Patil, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, these are the only legal
heirs of Pushpabai, no prejudice is caused by not deleting the
name of Pushpabai.
4. In this view of the matter, the question of the Reference
being against a dead person does not arise. Submission in this
respect is therefore rejected.
5. Since legal heirs of Pushpabai are already on record, so far
as Civil Application No.1059 of 2021 is concerned, the only thing
that needs to be done is to delete the name of Pushpabai. In
view of this, name of respondent No.4 - Pushpabai W/o. Vitthal
Patil stands deleted. Leave to amend is accordingly granted.
6. So far as Civil Application No.1058 of 2021 is concerned,
claimant Chindu S/o.Govinda Patil (Ghodke) died after the
{3} CA 1058 OF 2021 & ORS
Reference was decided. Therefore, his legal heirs are to be
brought on record. For the reasons stated in the application, Civil
Application No.1058 of 2021 is allowed. Delay is condoned.
Abatement is set aside. Legal heirs of claimant Chindu S/o.
Govinda Patil (Ghodke) be brought on record.
7. Leave to amend the proceedings before 12-03-2021.
( M.G.SEWLIKAR )
JUDGE
SPT
