Bombay High Court
Sadashiv Waman Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 21 January, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
WPs.6945 of 2020 and ors.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6945 of 2020
Chandrakant s/o. Manik Shinde ..Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and ors. ..Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6946 of 2020
Sadashiv s/o. Waman Shinde ..Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and ors. ..Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6947 of 2020
Narshing s/o. Bhimrao Somwase
(died), through L.Rs.
1A) Kamalbai w/o. Narshing Somwase,
Age : 70 years, Occ. Household,
r/o. Dahitana, Tq.Tuljapur,
Dist. Osmanabad
and ors. ..Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector,
Osmanabad and ors. ..Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 13:26:22 :::
2 WPs.6945 of 2020 and ors
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6949 of 2020
Sudhamati w/o. Govind Dhumal (died)
Through LRs.
1. Ashok s/o. Govind Dhumal
Age : 65 years, Occ. Agri.,
r/o. Khandala, Tq.Tuljapur,
Dist. Osmanabad
and others ..Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and ors. ..Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6948 OF 2020
Mallikarjun s/o. Nagnath Lakde ..Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6950 OF 2020
Sidhabai @ Sitabai Rama Anbule
(died), through L.Rs.
Jijabai w/o. Gajendra Lomte,
age : 48 years, Occ. Household,
r/o. Ruibhar
Tq. and Dist. Oamanabad ..Petitioners
VS.
The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 13:26:22 :::
3 WPs.6945 of 2020 and ors
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.2538 OF 2020
Digamber Namdeo Gaikwad ..Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.3616 OF 2020
Swarupchand s/o. Chotiram Chandwade ..Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents
----
Mr.R.V.Naiknavare, Advocate for petitioners in W.P. Nos.6945,
6946, 6947, 6949, 6948, 6950 of 2020
Mrs.Maya Jamdhade, Advocate for petitioners in W.P. No.2538
and 3616 of 2020
Mr.S.N.Morampalle and A.B.Chate, AGP for State in respective
petitions
Mr.A.S.Shelke, Advocate for respondent no.3 in W.P. No.2538
of 2020
Mrs.S.G.Chincholkar, Advocate for respondent no.2 in W.P.
No.3616 of 2020
----
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
DATE : JANUARY 21 , 2021
4 WPs.6945 of 2020 and ors
FINAL ORDER :-
All these Writ Petitions are decided by this common
order since common questions of facts and law arise therein.
2. The challenge in these Writ Petitions is to the orders,
whereby land acquisition references preferred by the
petitioners have either been dismissed/rejected for want of
evidence or returned back to the concerned Land Acquisition
Officers. The details thereof are given in tabular form, as
under:-
WRIT L.A.R. No. Date of order Court which Name of
PETITION passed the petitioner/s
NO. order
6945/2020 1598/2004 09.08.2007 District Chandrakant
Judge, Manik Shinde
(Ref. Petition Omerga
rejected)
6946/2020 1576/2004 10.08.2007 District Sadashiv s/o.
(Ref. Petition Judge, Waman
rejected) Omerga Shinde
6947/2020 672/2007 19.04.2013 2nd Jt. Civil Narsing s/o.
(Ref. Petition Judge, Senior Bhimrao
sent back to Division, Somwase and
to LAO) Osmanabad anr.
6948/2020 129/2005 30.04.2009 Jt. Civil Mallikarjun
(New) (Ref. Petition Judge, Senior Nagnath
399/1997 rejected) Division, Lakde
(Old) Umerga
5 WPs.6945 of 2020 and ors
6949/2020 417/2010 08.10.2015 3rd Jt. Civil Sow.
(Ref. Petition Judge, Senior Sudhamati w/
sent back to Division, o. Govind
to LAO) Osmanabad Dhumal
6950/2020 317/1999 18.06.2012 Civil Judge, Sidhabai @
(Ref. Senior Sitabai w/o.
Disposed of) Division, Rama
Osmanabad Anbhule
2538/2020 253/2007 28.11.2018 Civil Judge, Digambar
(Ref. Senior s/o. Namdeo
Dismissed) Division, Gaikwad
Nanded
3616/2020 77/2010 23.12.2016 Civil Judge, Swarupchand
(New) (Dismissed) Senior Chotiram
648/2005 Division, Chandwade
(Old) Vaijapur
3. I have heard Mr.Naiknavare and Mrs.Jamdhade,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the respective
petitions. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners
were poor agriculturists. Their properties came to be acquired
under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners have been paid
inadequate compensation. The petitioners had, therefore,
preferred reference/s for enhancement of compensation. The
Advocates appearing on their behalf before the respective
courts did not inform the petitioners the progress of the
6 WPs.6945 of 2020 and ors
matters. Some of the land references came to be transferred
from Osmanabad to Omerga. The Courts concerned either
dismissed/rejected six LARs (stated in tabular form herein
above) or returned two LARs (stated in tabular form herein
above) to the concerned Land Acquisition Officers. The same
has caused grave injustice to petitioners. After having learnt
about such orders, the petitioners have moved these Writ
Petitions.
4. 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 their respective LARs. They be given an
7 WPs.6945 of 2020 and ors
opportunity of hearing. LARs could not have been disposed of
by the courts concerned observing the petitioners to have been
failed to adduce evidence. Learned counsel, therefore,
ultimately, urged for setting aside the impugned orders.
5. Learned AGP would, on the other hand, submit that
the petitioners were grossly negligent. There is delay of over
6-7 years in some of the matters to approach this Court. If
the Court is pleased to allow the petitions, the petitioners may
not be held to be entitled for interest for the period from the
date of dismissal/return of LARs, to the date of filing of these
Writ Petitions.
6. 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 LARs 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.
7. In the similar facts and circumstances of the cases
referred to herein above (WP 12795 of 2019 and ors.), this
8 WPs.6945 of 2020 and ors
Court allowed those petitions setting aside the orders
impugned therein. Similar treatment is, therefore, required to
be given to the petitioners herein. The petitioners are poor
agriculturists. The petitioners, however, would not be entitled
for interest on the amount enhanced, if any, in their respective
LARs from the dates of dismissal/return of their LAR to the
date of filing of these Writ Petitions.
8. In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed
in the following terms:-
(i) The orders impugned in these Writ Petitions are set
aside. Respective LARs are restored to the file of respective
courts. The petitioners shall appear before the Courts
concerned on 05.02.2021.
(ii) The petitioners shall tender their affidavits in lieu of
examination-in-chief before the L.A.R. Courts concerned, 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.
9 WPs.6945 of 2020 and ors
(iv) The petitioners shall not be entitled for interest
component, in the event of enhancement of compensation,
from the date on which the LARs were dismissed/returned to
LAO, to the date of filing of these Writ Petitions.
(v) In the event these 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
