Remanded

Tukaram Aabaji Bhavar and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2012FA/865/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dismissing References filed under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on limitation grounds. Lacking a finding on the date the Award was passed or served, the matter was remitted to the Reference Court to determine limitation and allow evidence on market price.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and Award set aside; matter remitted to Reference Court; parties directed to lead evidence on market price and appear before Reference Court.

Tukaram Aabaji Bhavar and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 F.A. 865.....2012 - [ J ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 865 OF 2012

¶4

Tukaram S/o Abaji Bhavar Age : 67 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Jamathi (Kh.), Tq. & Dist. : Hingoli 2. Vachalabai W/o Tukaram Bhavar Age : 62 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Jamathi (Kh.), Tq. & Dist. : Hingoli .... APPELLANTS V E R S U S

¶5

The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. : Hingoli. 2. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Penganga Project No. 2, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. : Hingoli. 3. Deputy Chief Executive Engineer, South-Central Railway Construction, Department No. 2, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. : Nanded. .... RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 926 OF 2012

¶6

2 F.A. 865.....2012 - [ J ]

¶7

Govinda S/o Phulaji Bhavar Age : 42 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Jamathi (Kh.), Tq . & Dist. : Hingoli .

¶8

.... APPELLANT

¶9

V E R S U S

¶10

The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. : Hingoli.

¶11

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Penganga Project No. 2, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. : Hingoli. 3. Deputy Chief Executive Engineer, South-Central Railway Construction, Department No. 2, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. : Nanded. .... RESPONDENTS

¶12

WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 927 OF 2012

¶13

Ashok S/o Tulshiram Bhavar Age : 47 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Jamathi (Kh.), Tq . & Dist. : Hingoli .

¶14

.... APPELLANT

¶15

V E R S U S

¶16

3 F.A. 865.....2012 - [ J ]

¶17

The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. : Hingoli.

¶18

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Penganga Project No. 2, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. : Hingoli.

¶19

Deputy Chief Executive Engineer, South-Central Railway Construction, Department No. 2, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. : Nanded.

¶20

.... RESPONDENTS

¶21

WITH

¶22

FIRST APPEAL NO. 928 OF 2012

¶23

Baban S/o Nidhana Bhavar Age : 52 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Jamathi (Kh.), Tq . & Dist. : Hingoli . .... APPELLANT

¶24

V E R S U S

¶25

The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. : Hingoli.

¶26

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Penganga Project No. 2, Hingoli,

¶27

4 F.A. 865.....2012 - [ J ]

¶28

Tq. & Dist. : Hingoli.

¶29

Deputy Chief Executive Engineer, South-Central Railway Construction, Department No. 2, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. : Nanded. .... RESPONDENTS

¶30

WITH

¶31

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1669 OF 2012

¶32

Maroti S/o Tukaram Bhavar Age : 32 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Jamathi (Kh.), Tq . & Dist. : Hingoli . .... APPELLANT

¶33

V E R S U S

¶34

The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. : Hingoli.

¶35

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Penganga Project No. 2, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. : Hingoli.

¶36

Deputy Chief Executive Engineer, South-Central Railway Construction, Department No. 2, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. : Nanded.

¶37

.... RESPONDENTS

¶38

5 F.A. 865.....2012 - [ J ]

¶39

WITH

¶40

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2037 OF 2012

¶41

Ramdasi S/o Nidhana Bhavar Age : 42 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Jamathi (Kh.), Tq . & Dist. : Hingoli . .... APPELLANT

¶42

V E R S U S

¶43

The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. : Hingoli. 2. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Penganga Project No. 2, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. : Hingoli. 3. Deputy Chief Executive Engineer, South-Central Railway Construction, Department No. 2, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. : Nanded. .... RESPONDENTS

¶44

Mr. S.V.Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Appellants. Mrs. R.K.Ladda, A.G.P. for the State. Mr. M.N.Navandar, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

¶45

6 F.A. 865.....2012 - [ J ]

¶46

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 03/12/2012.

¶47

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶49

' Admit '.

¶50

With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶51

The References filed by the appellants U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act [ For short, ' L.A. Act ' ] came to be dismissed on the ground that the References are barred by limitation and the appellants could not prove that the market price of the land acquired was more than the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer [ For short, ' S.L.A.O. ' ].

¶52

All these Appeals are based on similar set of facts, as such are decided together.

¶53

Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned counsel for the appellants

¶54

7 F.A. 865.....2012 - [ J ]

¶55

submits that the intimation of the Award being passed was given to the appellants on 28/07/2009. Thereafter, the appellants had applied for the certified copy and after receipt of the certified copy, the References were filed on 05/09/2009. As such, the References filed are within the period of limitation as prescribed U/s 18 of the L.A. Act. The learned counsel submits that the appellants were not having the knowledge of the Award being passed prior to 28/07/2009 i.e. the date when the intimation was given about the Award. No date was fixed for passing the Award. The learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Das & Ors. V/s State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2010 (2) SCC - 545 and the another Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Premji Nathu V/s State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. - 514 .

¶56

According to the learned counsel, In view of these recent Judgments of the Apex Court, the Reference was perfectly within limitation.

¶57

The learned counsel further contends that the Reference Court has illegally discarded the sale instances placed on record. Even the witnesses were examined to prove the said sale instances and that the lands acquired and the lands under the sale instances are similarly situated. The Reference Court ought to have relied upon the sale deed.

¶58

8 F.A. 865.....2012 - [ J ]

¶59

Mr. Navandar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supports the Award passed by the Reference Court. The learned counsel submits that there can not be two (2) period of limitations and for the said purpose relies on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dinkar Prabhakar Shinde V/s Collector of Solapur & Ors. reported in 2008 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. - 357 .

¶60

The learned counsel further contends that U/s 18 of the L.A. Act, a party is not entitled for the dates required for obtaining the certified copy. The learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shantaram Ganesh Shenoy V/s Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2006 (5) Bom.C.R. - 299 .

¶61

The learned counsel further contends that the Reference Court has properly considered all the dates and has rightly come to the conclusion that the Reference was barred by limitation. The Award is passed by the S.L.A.O. on 20/12/2008. The learned counsel further contends that even on merits, the Reference Court had properly considered that the sale transactions are properly discarded upon considering the totality of the evidence. No objection was raised about the valuation of the tress. All these aspects have been properly considered.

¶62

9 F.A. 865.....2012 - [ J ]

¶63

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone

¶64

through the Judgment so also the record and proceedings.

¶65

With regard to the limitation, I have observed that it is not brought on record nor there is any such discussion as to whether the S.L.A.O. had given the date for passing the Award or whether the Award was passed in the presence of the parties. If the S.L.A.O. had given the date of passing of the Award or the Award is passed in the presence of the parties, then certainly the limitation would run from the date of the Award itself. No such discussion appears on the record. It is stated that no notice U/s 12 (2) of the L.A. Act has been received by the petitioners nor there is any finding that the appellants are served with the notice U/s 12 (2) of the L.A.Act. More over, the recent Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Premji Nathu and Bhagwan Das referred supra also deals with the facts that the parties should have knowledge of the Award being passed, so also about the contents of the Award. All these aspects will be required to be considered while deciding the issue of limitation. There is no discussion about the same.

¶66

For the said purpose, the matter will have to be remitted to the Reference Court by setting aside the finding on the point of limitation, so also enabling the parties to adduce the evidence if they chooses to.

¶67

10 F.A. 865.....2012 - [ J ]

¶68

As I am remitting the matter to the Reference Court on the point of limitation, it would be open for the parties to lead evidence so as to prove the market price. The parties may lead the evidence in respect of

¶69

the market price in addition to the evidence which is there on record.

¶70

In light of the above, the impugned Judgment and Award is set aside. The parties are relegated before the Reference Court. The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 04/01/2013. The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence on all the issues. The Reference Court shall thereafter decide the Reference on all the issues on its own merits expeditiously and preferably within six (6) months from the date of appearance of the parties. The record and proceedings be sent back forthwith.

¶71

It is made clear that I have not opined on the merits of the matter. All points are kept open. No costs.

¶72

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE

¶73

KNP/F.A. 865.....2012 - [ J ]

Tukaram Aabaji Bhavar and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tukaram Aabaji Bhavar and Anr. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babruwan Narayan Madne Vs the State of Mah.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Parwatibai Gaurishankar Waskar

The State of Maharashtra Vs Parwatibai Gaurishankar Waskar

Santosh Shankarrao Pakhare and Anr. Vs Laxmibai Anandrao Shendge

Santosh Shankarrao Pakhare and Anr. Vs Laxmibai Anandrao Shendge

Santosh Shankarrao Pakhare and Anr. Vs Laxmibai Anandrao Shendge