Himanshu Udaypuri Gosavi And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Revenue And ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6023 Bom

Bombay High Court

Himanshu Udaypuri Gosavi And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Revenue And ... on 23 September, 2025

Author: Milind N. Jadhav

Bench: Milind N. Jadhav

  2025:BHC-AS:40213
                                                                                                  21-cra-456-25.docx


                      Ingale

                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         Digitally
         signed by
                                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         URMILA
URMILA   PRAMOD
PRAMOD   INGALE
INGALE   Date:
         2025.09.24
         16:13:56
         +0530                                CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 456 OF 2025

                               Himanshu Udaypuri Gosavi and ors.                          .. Applicants
                                          Versus
                               The State of Maharashtra and ors.                          .. Respondents

                                                          ....................
                                Mr. Divyesh Jain a/w Mr.Shantanu Kolhe, Advocate for Applicant.
                                                                   ...................


                                                                   CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                                                   DATE        : SEPTEMBER 23, 2025
                               P. C.:

1. The Applicants have filed Reference proceedings under the

provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the said Act", for short).

The said Reference Application is dated 20/05/2011. It is filed with

the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition No.2, Nashik). The reference

application is filed within time as prescribed by the said Act. Learned

Advocate informs the Court that it is filed within limitation. Prima

facie, the only grievance expressed by the competent authority in the

impugned order dated 04/08/2025 is that when the Reference

Application is filed, the Applicants have not paid the advalorem stamp

duty due and payable for filing the statutory Reference Application

before the competent authority.

1 of 4

21-cra-456-25.docx

2. Mr. Jain would contend that once the Reference Application is

within limitation, then the Reference cannot be dismissed. He would

submit that admittedly there is delay in filing the advalorem stamp

duty amount. He would draw my attention to the contents of the

impugned order which itself states that the Applicants were called

upon by the competent authority to deposit the stamp duty amount so

that further steps can be taken for forwarding the Reference to the

District Court for adjudication in accordance with the provisions of

Section 18 read with Section 23 of the said Act. He would submit that

by virtue of the impugned order, since the Applicants have not paid the

stamp duty amount, the Reference filed under Section 18 of the said

Act has been rejected. He would submit that the ground of rejection

stated in the impugned order is that the Collector or the Special Land

Acquisition Officer is required to enclose the stamp duty payment

challan and only thereafter forward the same to the Reference Court

i.e. the District Court. He would contend that such a contention cannot

be held against the Applicants and application filed by the Applicants

cannot be rejected on the ground of non-payment of the Court fee. He

would submit that as held by this Court in a catena of judgments and

decisions, the owners whose land is acquired have the option of

payment of Court fee in the Reference Court. He would report to and

rely upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bapurao Popatrao

2 of 4

21-cra-456-25.docx

Toradmal Vs. The State of Maharashtra dated 14/10/2022 passed in

Writ Petition No. 10659 of 2022 along with companion Writ Petitions,

wherein this Court has held that even though Petitions appear to be

prima facie barred by delay and latches, the law relating to power of

the Deputy Collector (Acquisition) or Land Acquisition Officer to reject

the Application made under Section 18 for Reference is well settled

and it cannot be rejected for the reason of non-payment of Court fee.

3. I have perused the said decision. Reliance is also placed by

learned Advocate on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of

Kashi Ram Namdeo Zambro Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

(1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 289 in support of his aforesaid

proposition. While interpreting the provisions of Sections 18(1) and

18(2), the Supreme Court has held that the said Act is a self-contained

Code and it does not speak of payment of any Court fee and all that it

requires is an application to be made within the prescribed limitation

period as contemplated.

4. Both the aforesaid decisions, prima facie, cover the Applicant's

case.

5. In view of the above observations and findings, the impugned

order date 04/08/2025 is unsustainable in law and the same is

3 of 4

21-cra-456-25.docx

quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Application

succeeds.

6. The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition No. 2, Nashik) is

directed to forward the Reference forthwith to the Reference Court for

adjudication. Learned Advocate for Applicants informs the Court that

Applicants shall pay advalorem Court fee as applicable in the District

Court within a period of 4 weeks from the date of filing of the

reference. That liberty is granted by the Court. Subject to payment of

the advalorem Court fee, the Reference shall be adjudicated under

Section 18 of the said Act strictly in accordance with law thereafter.

7. The present Civil Revision Application stands allowed in the

above terms.

Ingale                                                 [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]




                                                                                 4 of 4