Allowed

Habib Khan Munawar Kahn Died Thru Lrs Amt Kanijabegum Habib Khan and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2014FA/299/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed appeals dismissing a Land Reference filed by claimants, which had been rejected on limitation grounds. The court held the filing was timely and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing Land Reference is set aside; matter remitted to Principal District Judge, Aurangabad to be decided within eight months.

Habib Khan Munawar Kahn Died Thru Lrs Amt Kanijabegum Habib… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 FA NOS.298/2012 & 299/2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.298 OF 2012

¶4

Habib Khan Munawar Khan,
Died through L.Rs.

¶5

1. Smt.Kanijabegum w/o Habib Khan, Age 50 years, Occ. Household, r/o Kaiser Colony, Aurangabad.

¶6

2. Ibrahim s/o Habib Khan, Age 27 years, Occ. Business, r/o Kaiser Colony, Aurangabad.

¶7

3. Isakkhan s/o Habib Khan, Age 23 years, Occ. Business, r/o Kaiser Colony, Aurangabad.

¶8

4. Aniskhan s/o Habib Khan, Age 21 years, Occ. Business, r/o Kaiser Colony, Aurangabad.

¶9

5. Musakhan s/o Habib Khan, Age 19 years, Occ. Business, r/o Kaiser Colony, Aurangabad.

¶10

2. Noor Khan s/o Munawar Khan, Age 52 years, Occ. Business, r/o Moti Karanja, Aurangabad.

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

 (Orig.Petitioners)

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

1. The State of Maharashtra.

¶15

2 FA NOS.298/2012 & 299/2012

¶16

2. Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad through its Dy.Commissioner, Aurangabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(Orig.Respondents)

¶19

...

¶20

Mr. Ajit D.Kasliwal, Adv., for the appellant.
Mr.R.P.Phatke, APP for respondent State.
Mr. U.K.Patil, Adv., for respondent no.2.

¶21

...

¶22

WITH

¶23

FIRST APPEAL NO.299 OF 2012

¶24

Habib Khan Munawar Khan,
Died through L.Rs.

¶25

1. Smt.Kanijabegum w/o Habib Khan, Age 50 years, Occ. Household, r/o Kaiser Colony, Aurangabad.

¶26

2. Ibrahim s/o Habib Khan, Age 27 years, Occ. Business, r/o Kaiser Colony, Aurangabad.

¶27

3. Isakkhan s/o Habib Khan, Age 23 years, Occ. Business, r/o Kaiser Colony, Aurangabad.

¶28

4. Aniskhan s/o Habib Khan, Age 21 years, Occ. Business, r/o Kaiser Colony, Aurangabad.

¶29

5. Musakhan s/o Habib Khan, Age 19 years, Occ. Business, r/o Kaiser Colony, Aurangabad.

¶30

3 FA NOS.298/2012 & 299/2012

¶31

2. Noor Khan s/o Munawar Khan, Age 52 years, Occ. Business, r/o Moti Karanja, Aurangabad.

¶32

...APPELLANT

¶33

VERSUS

¶34

1. The State of Maharashtra.

¶35

2. Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad through its Dy.Commissioner, Aurangabad.

¶36

...RESPONDENTS
(Orig.Respondents)

¶37

...

¶38

Mr. Ajit D.Kasliwal, Adv., for the appellant.
Mr.R.P.Phatke, APP for respondent State.
Mr. U.K.Patil, Adv., for respondent no.2.

¶39

...

¶40

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.

¶41

 DATE : January 22nd, 2014.

¶42

***

¶43

P.C.:

¶44

1.Heard Mr. Kasliwal and Mr.Patil for
respective parties in both the appeals.

¶45

By consent, both the appeals are taken up for
final hearing at admission stage. Original record
and proceedings is available, and perused.

¶46

2.Original claimant / appellant questions
dismissal of respective Land References by
learnedCivilJudge,SeniorDivision

¶47

( Corporation Court) Aurangabad, dated 5th Oct.,

¶48

4 FA NOS.298/2012 & 299/2012

¶49

2011, solely on the ground of limitation.

¶50

3.Without adverting to the competency of
enhancement or production of sale instances,
etc., it is necessary to only refer the relevant
dates. From the office note of learned Special
Land Acquisition Officer, while referring the
Land References to the District Court at
Aurangabad, dated 14.11.1994, the details are
given. There is no contest to the dates and
details from the State as to its accuracy. The
award was declared on 30.6.1994, it was served
upon the claimants on 4.8.1994. Application was
moved for copy on 17.8.1994 and the copy was
received on 1.10.1994 and by a Reference dated
18.10.1994, the claimants have requested to
refer the same to the Court.

¶51

4.The period from service and application
of copy will be detrimental against the claimants
which is 15 days. However, the claimants will be
entitled to benefit of intervening period from
the application dated 17.8.1994, till furnishing
certified copy of the award dated 1.10.1994.
The award is questioned on 18.10.1994.

¶52

5.By mere calculation, it is apparent, the
challenge to the Land Reference Award by filing
Land Reference before the learned Special Land
Acquisition Officer was in time of 42 days ( six

¶53

5 FA NOS.298/2012 & 299/2012

¶54

weeks) provided under the Statute. The learned
Judge erred in placing reliance to the judgment
in the matter of Mahadeo Patil Vs. State of
Maharashtra ( 2006 (1) Mh.L.J. 28). In the said
case, after the award, the claimants were
communicated by telegram, it was in condensed
format. The claimants asserted that the
telegraphic notice was insufficient as to
details. The Apex Court did not approve such
stand of the claimants. In paragraph nos. 8 and
10 of the judgment, the Apex Court has referred
in detail the legal position of applicability of
limitation and computation of period.

¶55

In the fact scenario, it was observed that
the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act is clear intimation of making of
the award, requiring owner to receive the
compensation in terms of Section 11 thereof. It
is not necessary that the notice should contain
all the details of the award, including the
consideration by the Land Acquisition Collector
and its manner of determination of the
compensation. No particular format is prescribed
by the Act or the Rules. No such situation
emerges. The time spent after service even if
excluded, the References were in time before the
Special Land Acquisition Officer.

¶56

6 FA NOS.298/2012 & 299/2012

¶57

6.Mr.Kasliwal, learned Counsel, has placed
reliance to the judgment of the Apex Court in the
matter of Premji Nathu vs. State of Gujarat and
another ( 2012 (3) ALL MR 434 (SC) dealing with
limitation and time required for making
application.

¶58

7.The observation of the learned Judge
rejecting the Land References on sole point of
limitation, therefore, calls for interference.
Both the appeals allowed.

¶59

The matter is remitted to the learned
Principal District Judge, Aurangabad who shall
assign the same to appropriate Court after
considering the time already spent and the
acquisition being of 1994. The learned Reference
Court shall decide the same within a period of
eight months.

¶60

(K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE

¶61

...

¶62

AGP/298-12fa

Habib Khan Munawar Kahn Died Thru Lrs Amt Kanijabegum Habib Khan and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habib Khan Munawar Kahn Died Thru Lrs Amt Kanijabegum Habib Khan and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

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

Suvarna Rajabhau Ghodke and Others Vs M/S. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Raganath Buwaji Pawar Deceased through Lrs Bhausaheb and Others Vs State of Mahaarashtra

Baban Nathu Pawar Vs State of Maha

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Aurangabad Thr Divnl Manager Vs Nandu Bhimrao Raut and Anr.

Habib Khan Munawar Kahn Died Thru Lrs Amt Kanijabegum Habib Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Arjun Jivanrao Kunthe Vs Dilip Gunderao Telang and Others