Allowed

Sajanbai Navnath Lomate v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC14 Feb 2013WP/1290/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition allowed restoration of a land acquisition reference dismissed in default. The High Court quashed the impugned order, citing the Reference Court's error in not adjudging on merits. It also noted the petitioner's valid grounds for delay.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; restoration application allowed; reference restored; undertaking for waiver of benefits imposed.

Sajanbai Navnath Lomate Vs the State of Mah — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 wp 1290.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1290 OF 2013

¶4

Sajanbai W/o Navnath Lomate, Age : 75 Years, Occu. : Nil, R/o Devlali, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through District Collector, Osmanabad.

¶7

.. Respondent

¶8

Shri A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondents/State.

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY, 2013.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶11

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

¶12

An application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay caused in filing restoration application for setting aside the order dated 07.02.2000 passed in a reference U/Sec. 18 of the

¶13

2 wp 1290.13

¶14

Land Acquisition Act thereby dismissing the reference in default is rejected.

¶15

Shri Nagargoje, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not aware of the order dismissing the reference in default. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is an old, illiterate lady, who is residing in a village. She is always ill and requires medical treatment regularly since 1993. She is a widow and because of the lack of knowledge of the order of dismissal being passed the restoration petition could not be filed earlier. This ground ought to have been considered by the Reference Court. The learned counsel submits that, the Court below has taken very hyper technical approach and has rejected the same.

¶16

Shri Kadam, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, there is inordinate delay in filing the restoration application. No proper reasons are given. The Court has considered all these facets of the matter and has rightly rejected the same. The petitioner cannot take the benefit of her own wrong. The petitioner cannot claim any premium over her negligence in the shape of statutory benefits.

¶17

3 wp 1290.13

¶18

Shri Nagargoje, the learned counsel on instructions of the petitioner makes a statement that in case the compensation is enhanced in a reference, the petitioner would not claim the statutory benefit over the enhanced amount for the period the reference was dismissed in default till this date of restoration i. e. till today and submits that the petitioner would file undertaking to that effect.

¶19

With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the order.

¶20

The Reference Court at the outset could not have dismissed the reference in default. It has to deal with the reference on merits. The order dismissing the reference in default itself was erroneous. In fact the reference Court failed to exercise his jurisdiction in deciding the reference on merits.

¶21

The petitioner has given reasons. There is no contra evidence to disbelieve the same. The certificate is also filed on record. It also appears that the petitioner is a rustic villager residing in an interior rural village. The petitioner has also shown bonafides by agreeing to waive the statutory benefits for the said period.

¶22

4 wp 1290.13

¶23

In view of the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to grant opportunity to the petitioner. In the result I pass the following order.

¶24

The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay and restoration is allowed. The reference bearing L.A.R. No. 710/1991 is restored to its original position. The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the Reference Court stating that the petitioner would not claim and has waived all the statutory benefits on the compensation amount if enhanced by the Reference Court from 07.02.2000 till 14.02.2013.

¶25

The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 11.03.2013. Taking into account the fact that the Reference is old one, the Reference Court shall decide the reference as expeditiously as possible and within six months from the date of appearance.

¶26

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶27

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶28

bsb/Feb. 13

Sajanbai Navnath Lomate v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajanbai Navnath Lomate v. the State of Mah

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

Raosaheb Shamrao Pawar Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.I.W Jalgaon

Sadashiv Uttam Walekar and Ors. Vs Sambhaji Babasaheb Maind and Anr.

Swarupaben Madhavdas Saha and Ors. Vs Subhash Shankar Patil and Anr.

Renuka Manoj Chavan and Anr. Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Shrikrishna @ Pintu Venkatrao Thormote Vs Bhagatsingh Amarsingh Thakur and Anr.

Vikas Deelip Shingade Vs Vatsala Nagnath Nalapure and Others