Bombay High Court
Ganpati Ramchandra Kadera vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 19 September, 2022
Bench: S. G. Dige
1
474.10FA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 474 OF 2010
Shri Pandharinath S/o Vaijnath Jadhav
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
1) Smt. Bhagirathibai W/o Pandharinath Jadhav
Age : 70 years, Occ : Household,
2) Venkat S/o Pandharinath Jadhav
Age : 45 years, Occ : Agriculture,
3) Vaijnath S/o Pandharinath Jadhav
Age : 35 years, Occ : Agriculture,
All R/o Mahadev Galli, Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad
4) Saw Anita W/o Nivrutti Sawant
Age : 42 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Nagthana, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Osmanabad.
. ..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through District Collector,
Osmanabad.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Project,
Strengthening Division,
Dist. Latur.
. ..RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2022 01:08:42 :::
2
474.10FA
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 528 OF 2010
Ganpati S/o Ramchandra Kadere
Age : Major, Occ : Agriculture,
R/o Juni Peth, Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad.
..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through District Collector,
Osmanabad.
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer No.1, Osmanabad.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Project,
Strengthening Division,
Dist. Latur.
. ..RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Appellants in FAs.: Mr. S.R. Sapkal
AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in F.A. No.474/2010 : Mr.
S.S. Dande
AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 in F.A. No.528/2010: Mr.S.S.
Dande
...
CORAM : S.G.DIGE, J.
DATE : 19.09.2022
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Both these appeals are from same land
acquisition proceedings and have been rejected on the
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2022 01:08:42 :::
3
474.10FA
ground of limitation, hence I am deciding these two appeals
by common judgment.
2. The issue of limitation is involved in these
appeals.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellants that the claim petitions were filed by the
appellants within limitation. The learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Omerga has rejected two claim petitions on the
ground that the claim petitions were not within limitation.
The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land
belonging to the appellants was acquired in the year 1992.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded meagre
compensation. Thereafter the reference petitions were filed
for enhancement of compensation, but the learned
Reference Court has rejected it on the ground of limitation.
The learned counsel further submits that in land reference
in paragraph 8, it was mentioned that first time the
claimant got knowledge on 22nd May, 1992 when he has
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2022 01:08:42 :::
4
474.10FA
withdrawn the amount of compensation. The learned
Reference Court has given more weightage to the clerical
mistake in the affidavit filed by the appellants. The learned
counsel further submits that while forwarding the
references to the Reference Court, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer has put the remark that the references
are within limitation. This fact was not considered by the
Reference Court. Hence requested to allow the appeals.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on
the judgments in the case of Purushottambhai Maganbhai
Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in AIR 2005
S.C. 3464.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the respondents that the appellants themselves in their
affidavit had mentioned that they have received the amount
on 20th May, 1992. When the appellants themselves have
stated the date, on that basis the Reference Court has
passed the order, which is legal and valid. Hence no
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2022 01:08:42 :::
5
474.10FA
interference is required in it.
6. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused
the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court.
7. The Reference Court has observed that the
appellants have in their affidavit in examination in chief
have stated the date which clearly shows that there is one
day delay for filing the References, hence the Reference
Court has rejected the claim petitions of the appellants. As
the issue is in respect of limitation, it is necessary to see
section 18(2)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For
short, "L.A. Act"), which states about limitation.
8. Section 18(2)(b) provides in other cases, within
six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector,
under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from
the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall
first expire. In the present matters, the appellants received
notice under section 12(2) of L.A. Act on 22 nd May, 1992, so
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2022 01:08:42 :::
6
474.10FA
six weeks would expire on 4th July, 1992. The appellants
filed claim petitions on 3rd July, 1992. It shows that the
appellants' claim petitions were within time. This fact is
strengthened by the remarks of the Land Acquisition Officer
mentioning that the appellants' claim petitions are within
limitation. The said remarks is at Exhibit-1 clause 17(1). In
my view, the Reference Court has erred while considering
this aspect.
9. In view of the above, I pass the following
order :-
ORDER
(i) The appeals are allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order passed by the Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Omerga is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The matters are remanded back to the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Omerga for fresh hearing.
474.10FA
(iv) The parties shall lead the evidence in support of their
contentions, if they so desire.
(v) The learned Reference Court shall decide the
References on its own merits. As the matters are pertains to
the year 2010, hence the learned Reference Court is
requested to dispose of these matters as early as possible
preferably within six months after the receipt of this order.
(vi) The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
[S.G.DIGE]
JUDGE
SGA/-
