Bombay High Court
Tukaram S/O Thansing Jadhav And Anr vs The S.L.A.O. Jayakwadi Project No. 2 ... on 6 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:413
{1} F.A. No.3144-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3144 OF 2021
1. Vijay s/o. Ramdhan Dandge ... APPELLANT
(Original Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jayakwadi Project No.2,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
2. The Executive Engineer
Minor Irrigation Division No.1,
Aurangabad ... RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3145 OF 2021
1. Tukaram s/o. Thansing Jadhav
2. Durgabai w/o. Mohansing Jadhav ... APPELLANTS
(Original Claimants)
VERSUS
1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jayakwadi Project No.2,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
2. The Executive Engineer
Minor Irrigation Division No.1,
Aurangabad ... RESPONDENTS
(Original Respondents)
...
Mr. Dnyaneshwar A. Bide - Advocate for Appellants
Mr. Rajdeep D. Raut - AGP for Respondent No.1, State
Mr. S.B. Patil - Advocate for Respondent No.2
....
Pooja Kale
{2} F.A. No.3144-2021
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 6th JANUARY, 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard rival submissions.
2. These two appeals are preferred against the judgment and
award passed by learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Reference
Court") in L.A.R. No.220 of 2012 dated 21.09.2021 and L.A.R.
No.251 of 2012 dated 14.09.2021 respectively filed by the
claimants.
3. Learned advocate for the appellants pointed out that, the
impugned judgments and awards and submitted that, the
applications for amendment were moved in these two proceedings.
These two applications were allowed, however the amendment was
not carried out within the stipulated period. Thereafter, the
permission was sought by filing the applications however these
applications were not decided. But on the oral request of the
learned advocate for the claimants the amendment were carried
out regarding the adding of nature of the lands i.e. perennial
irrigated land and adding of number of trees in the applications.
Pooja Kale
{3} F.A. No.3144-2021
4. Learned advocate for the appellants further argued that, it is
in the said impugned judgment by the learned Reference Court.
But it did not award compensation to the appellants as it was
allowed in other cases. He pointed out that, the judgment of the
same Judge delivered in L.A.R. No.228 of 2008 dated 14.02.2020
in which the amount of compensation was awarded at the more
rate to the claimants where are similarly situated. He submitted
that because of the mistake of the advocate, the parties shall not
suffer. He therefore prayed for remanding the reference to the
learned Reference Court for deciding it on merit.
5. Learned advocate for the respondents strongly objected the
appeals and submitted that, the amendment in the applications
were carried out without permission of the Court and an
opportunity was not given to the respondents to file their
additional written statements thereafter. Therefore, now prayer for
the remand of those land references is not justifiable. He
submitted to dismiss the appeals as the directions of the learned
Reference Court were not followed by the appellants regarding
carrying out the said amendments.
6. Perused the impugned judgment, record and proceeding as
Pooja Kale
{4} F.A. No.3144-2021
well as ground raised in the appeals.
7. The following point emerged for consideration in both the
appeals :
(a) Is that the ground made out for remanding the
references to learned Reference Court for decision ?
8. As far as moving of the applications for amendments are
concerned admittedly, the amendments in these two applications
are carried out without there being written order for carrying out
the same.
9. Even though the amendment is carried out the opportunity
to lead evidence to the claimants and to defend the claim regarding
the adding of trees and nature of the property i.e. perennial
irrigated land was not given to the respondents. Therefore in the
interest of the justice, these two appeals deserves to be remanded
to the learned Reference Court for giving an opportunity to the
respondents to file their additional written statement, if they are
willing and also for deciding these two matters on merits by giving
an opportunity to both sides to lead evidences, if any. Therefore
the argument advanced by learned advocate for the appellants is
acceptable in this regard. However, the arguments of the learned
Pooja Kale
{5} F.A. No.3144-2021
advocate for the respondents is not acceptable.
10. In view of the above reasons, the appeals deserve to be partly
allowed for remanding the applications for hearing and deciding
these on merits before the learned Reference Court. Hence, point
No.1 is answered in affirmative. Therefore, following order :
ORDER
(i) Both the appeals are allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgments and awards are set aside
and the learned Reference Court is directed to give an
opportunity to the respondents to file their say. The learned
Reference Court is further directed to give an opportunity to
the applicants/claimants to lead their additional evidence,
if any, and also same opportunity be given to the contesting
respondents.
(iii) It is clarified that, now the issue of carrying out the
amendment shall not be agitated and considered as the
amendment is carried out. The matter is therefore
remanded to the learned Reference Court for allowing to
submit additional written statement and to lead the
additional evidence, if any, and deciding it on merit
Pooja Kale
{6} F.A. No.3144-2021
particularly in view of the principle of parity considering the
similar judgment delivered by the same Court in L.A.R.
No.228 of 2012 dated 14.02.2020.
(iv) It would be proper to give directions to the learned
Reference Court to decide these two references as
expeditiously as early as possible and preferably within
four (4) months from today.
(v) The appellants to submit copies of these judgments in
both the learned Reference Court.
(vi) The parties to appear before the learned Reference
Court on 27.01.2025.
(vii) No costs.
(viii) Record and proceeding be sent back.
(ix) The appeals are disposed of.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ]
JUDGE
Pooja Kale
