Bombay High Court
Kailas Raghuji Kharat vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 17 October, 2022
Bench: S. G. Dige
{1} FA 1030 OF 2014 & ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1030 OF 2014
. Kesharbai w/o. Deorao Khole (Died) through L.R.s
1-A. Rushindhar s/o. Deorao Khole
Age: 57 years, Occu.: Agriculture
1-B. Baban s/o. Deorao Khole
Age: 52 years, Occu.: Agriculture
1-A to 1-B Both R/o. Dhangar Mohalla,
Ambad, Taluka Ambad, Dist.Jalna.
1-C. Parwatabai w/o. Hiraman Limbalkar
Age: 50 years, Ocu.: Household
1-D. Meenabai w/o Govindrao Sable
Age; 48 years, Occu.: Household,
1-C to 1-D Both R/o. New Mondha,
Ambad, Taluka Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
1-E. Baburao s/o. Deorao Khole
Age: 45 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Dhangar Mohalla,
Ambad, Taluka Ambad, Dist.Jalna. ..Appellants
(Ori. Claimants)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Jalna.
2. Sub-Divisional Ofcer, Partur
(Competent Authority under the
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Act, 1961]
3. The Regional Manager,
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Station Road, Aurangabad. ..Respondents
[Ori. Respondents]
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 04:58:07 :::
{2} FA 1030 OF 2014 & ORS.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1031/2014
. Baburao s/o. Deorao Khole
Age: 46 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o. Dhangar Mohalla,
Ambad, Taluka Ambad, Dist.Jalna. ..Appellant
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Jalna.
2. Sub-Divisional Ofcer, Partur
(Competent Authority under the
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Act, 1961]
3. The Regional Manager,
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Station Road, Aurangabad. ..Respondents
[Ori. Respondents]
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1032/2014
. Baban s/o. Deorao Khole
Age: 46 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o. Dhangar Mohalla,
Ambad, Taluka Ambad, Dist.Jalna. ..Appellant
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Jalna.
2. Sub-Divisional Ofcer, Partur
(Competent Authority under the
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Act, 1961]
3. The Regional Manager,
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Station Road, Aurangabad. ..Respondents
[Ori. Respondents]
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 04:58:07 :::
{3} FA 1030 OF 2014 & ORS.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1033/2014
. Sugandhabai Raghuji Kharat (died)
through L.Rs.
1-AA] Smt.Ramkor w/o Jagannath Kharat
Age: 49 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Holkarnagar, Ambad,
Tq.Ambad, Dist.Jalna.
1-AB] Aakash s/o Jagannath Kharat
Age: 28 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o. Holkarnagar, Ambad,
Tq.Ambad, Dist.Jalna. ..Appellants
(Ori. Claimants)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Jalna.
2. Sub-Divisional Ofcer, Partur
(Competent Authority under the
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Act, 1961]
3. The Regional Manager,
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Station Road, Aurangabad. ..Respondents
[Ori. Respondents]
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1034/2014
. Kailas s/o. Raghuji Kharat
Age: 46 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o. Dhangar Mohalla,
Ambad, Taluka Ambad, Dist.Jalna. ..Appellant
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 04:58:07 :::
{4} FA 1030 OF 2014 & ORS.
2. Sub-Divisional Ofcer, Partur
(Competent Authority under the
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Act, 1961]
3. The Regional Manager,
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Station Road, Aurangabad. ..Respondents
[Ori. Respondents]
...
Advocate for Appellants : Mr.Amit A. Mukhedkar
AGP for Respondents-State : Mr.S.N.Morampalle
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr.S.S.Dande
...
CORAM : S. G. DIGE, J.
DATE : 17th October, 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfed by the common Judgment
and order dated 25-07-2012 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Jalna, the appellants - original claimants have
preferred these appeals.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the Reference Court has rejected the claim
petitions of the appellants on the ground that the said references
were not in limitation. The Reference Court has considered other
aspects and enhanced the compensation but rejected the claim
petitions though, the claim petitions fled by the appellants were
within limitation. The learned counsel for the appellants further
{5} FA 1030 OF 2014 & ORS.
submits that the appellants had received the compensation
amount on 10-11-1993, on the same day the appellants had
fled the applications before respondent No.2 for enhancement of
the compensation and the said amount was accepted under
protest but it was not considered by the Reference Court and
wrongly came to the conclusion that the claim petitions were not
within the limitation. Hence, requested to allow the appeals.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that no
evidence was produced on record by the appellants to prove that
the claim petitions were fled before respondent No.2 authority to
refer it for enhancement. Hence, the Judgment and order passed
by the Reference Court is legal and valid.
4. I have heard all the learned counsel. Perused the Judgment
and order passed by the Reference Court. The issue involved in
these appeals is whether the claim petitions fled by the
appellants before the Reference Court were within limitation or
not. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants
that on 10-11-1993 all the appellants received the compensation
from respondent-Acquiring Body and on the same day, the
appellants fled applications before Respondent No.2 that they
are accepting the said amount under protest and they are
{6} FA 1030 OF 2014 & ORS.
entitled for the enhanced amount. As issue involved in these
appeals is of limitation, Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Act, 1961 (for short 'the MID Act') is referred.
Section 34 of the MID Act reads as under :
"34. [(1) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the
Collector determining the amount of compensation may,
within sixty days from the date of such decision, so far as it
afects him, by written application to the Collector reuuire
that the matter be referred by him for determination of the
Court as defned in the Land Acuuisition Act, 1894, in its
application to the State of Maharashtra, and when any such
application is made the provisions of Part III of the said Act
shall mutatis mutandis apply to further proceedings in
respect thereof.]
5. This Section states that after determination of amount of
compensation by the Collector, within 60 days from the date of
such decision, by way of written application to the Collector, the
concerned person may request that the matter be referred by
him for determination of the Court as defned in the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court in paragraph No.31
of the Judgment and order has observed that the appellants had
given letters to respondent No.2 but those letters were not
considered as the reference petitions, as provided under Section
34 of the MID Act. In my view, Section 34 of the MID Act states
{7} FA 1030 OF 2014 & ORS.
about written application and the written applications were fled
by the appellants before respondent No.2. So it proves that the
appellants had accepted the said compensation amount under
protest and they were seeking enhancement. Written
applications for enhancement are sufcient to prove that
appellants were seeking enhancement. Section 34 does not
provide a form of petition, it states about written application. It
is observed by the Reference Court that there is three days
delay, it should be fled within 60 days. As observed earlier, there
is no delay for fling the claim petitions. Hence, observation of
the Reference Court regarding issue of limitation is set aside. In
view of this, I hold that the reference petitions are within
limitation.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel
for the respondents submit that opportunity of fresh hearing be
given to them. Thus, only opportunity of hearing can be given to
both the parties as evidence is already on record. In view of
above, I pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) Appeals are partly allowed.
{8} FA 1030 OF 2014 & ORS.
(ii) The matters are remanded back to the 2nd Joint Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Jalna for fresh hearing by giving opportunity to
both the parties.
(iii) It is made clear that on the basis of available record, the
Court shall give fresh hearing only to both the parties on the
issue that whether the rate determined by the Reference Court is
proper or not.
(iv) Both the parties shall appear before the Reference Court on
21-11-2022.
(v) The Reference Court is requested to dispose of these
matters as early as possible and preferably within three months
from the date of receipt of this order.
(vi) Record and Proceedings be sent back.
(vii) Appeals are disposed of.
( S. G. DIGE )
JUDGE
SPT
