Gurudipsingh Jitamsingh Dhillon ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6032 Bom

                                   {1}               WP 4191 OF 2022


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   971 WRIT PETITION NO.4191 OF 2022

        GURUDIPSINGH JITAMSINGH DHILLON AND ANOTHER
                              VERSUS
            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                  ...
                Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.D.A. Bide
              AGP for Respondent No.1 : Mr.P.G.Borade
      Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms.Surekha G. Chincholkar
                                  ...
                               CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

                                  DATE :      29 June 2022

 PER COURT:-



          Heard both the sides.

2. The petitioners' reference under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 has been dismissed by the reference court

by the Judgment and order dated 11 September 2017 apparently

because of the petitioners' failure to lead any evidence to prove

that the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land

Acquisition Ofcer was insufcient.

3. It has been mentioned in the Judgment that the petitioners'

right to lead evidence was forfeited by order dated 27 June 2017

and that there was no evidence to show that the compensation

paid was insufcient.

{2} WP 4191 OF 2022

4. Time and again, it has been stated that being a reference,

the reference court has to answer the reference objectively and

cannot dismiss it in default. Though the learned Judge has

articulated the words to appear that he was deciding the

reference, in substance, the order dismisses the reference in

default.

5. The reasons for the petitioners to not to prosecute the

reference apart, the fact remains that they were aware about

pendency of the reference still they were remiss in leading

evidence.

6. In view of such state of afairs, it would be appropriate to

follow the course that has been followed by this court in number

of similar matters, remanding the matter to the reference court

for decision afresh, however, making the petitioners forgo the

monetary benefts from the date they were supposed to lead

evidence but had not turned up. Going by the record, the

reference was awaiting evidence by the petitioners since 7 April

2015.

7. Writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is

quashed and set aside.

{3} WP 4191 OF 2022

8. The reference is remanded to the reference court for

decision afresh. However, subject to the condition that the

petitioners would not be entitled for any monetary beneft for the

period from 7 April 2015 till the date of appearance before the

reference court by virtue of this order.

9. The petitioners shall not prolong the matter and shall lead

all their evidence within two months of their appearance before

the reference court.

10. The parties shall appear before the reference court on 11

July 2022. There shall be no need for the reference Court to

issue notices to the parties.

( MANGESH S. PATIL ) JUDGE SPT