Allowed

Manohar Jayaram Ambar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2009FA/512/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a first appeal filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, setting aside an order dismissing a land reference due to the claimant's prolonged absence and counsel's slackness. The Court granted an opportunity to have the matter adjudicated on merits but denied statutory interest for the period of inaction.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the land reference was set aside; the Reference Court directed to decide the matter on merits independently without awarding interest for the period of default.

Manohar Jayaram Ambar Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2009.

¶5

Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders

¶6

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶7

or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶8

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
DATE :17th July, 2009.

¶9

.HeardMr.Dalal,forthe

¶10

appellant/original claimant and Mrs. RR
Mane, learned AGP for State.

¶11

2)In an unfortunate event, where

¶12

the appellant/claimant suffered due to
slackness of the counsel in a reference

¶13

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, is subject of challenge.

¶14

3)Since the controversy was
trivial in nature, original record need

¶15

not be called, and by consent, the
matter is finally heard at admission
stage.

¶16

4)Theagriculturefield
admeasuring36R.ofthe

¶17

¶18

appellant/claimant being land Survey No.
396 at village Murum, Tq. Omerga,
District Osmanabad, was acquired for
Benitura project, its possession was
taken on 6.10.1992. The claimant being
dissatisfied with the Award by learned

¶19

Special Land Acquisition Officer,
challenged the same by way of Reference,
presented to the Collector, who remitted
the same to the Court.

¶20

5)The matter was ready for
evidence,however,the
claimant/appellant or his counsel did
not participate, evinced from the record
dated 26.3.2007; 18.7.2007; 12.3.2008;
10.6.2008 and 18.6.2008. The Court also
found that no efforts are made by the
appellant or by his counsel to proceed
with the matter, and the attitude and
apathy constrained the Court to dismiss
the Reference.

¶21

6)There cannot be two views on
the slackness of the appellant or his
counsel in prosecuting the matter.

¶22

¶23

However, the repentance demonstrated by
the appellant, where he has a feeling of
sufferance owing to acquisition of 36 R.
of his property, the right, which he
feels to be squeezed, should not be
foreclosed. At least, there should be
an opportunity to get the matter
adjudicated on merits.

¶24

7)Thefactremains,the
protraction for a long duration should
not be taken as a bonus for staking the

¶25

claim for statutory benefits, like
interest. Needless to add both the
sides will be at liberty to adduce
independent evidence. Consequently, the
appeal is allowed with following
directions -

¶26

(i)The order under challenge in

¶27

Land Reference No. 994/2005 dated
14.1.2009 is set aside; The learned
Reference Court will independently
decide the land Reference on its own
merits and if he comes to a conclusion
of entitlement for enhancement, in such

¶28

¶29

eventuality, the appellant shall not be
entitled to statutory benefits of
interest from 26.3.2007 till 17.7.2009.
This naturally will be specifically
mentioned in the order.

¶30

.No costs.

¶31

bdv/fa512.09

Manohar Jayaram Ambar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Jayaram Ambar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Maharashtra Vs Bapurao Baban Darade

Manager United India Insurance Co.Ltd Parbhani Vs Venubai Deorao Makrand and Ors.

State of Maha Vs Suhas Eknath Salpe Died Lrs and Ors.

Shaikh Nizam Shaikh Gulab. Vs Shaikh Shafi Shaikh Baba and Others.

Govind Ram Suryawanshi Vs Umesh Madhavrao Kamble and Anr.

Mohan Mangilal Kabra Vs State of Maha and Ors.