Remanded

Kashinath Lakula Bhosle and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through the Collector of Latur and Others

Bombay HC12 Oct 2017CRA/169/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision application concerns the acquisition of land for a canal. The Reference Court dismissed the claim due to a lack of evidence adduced by counsel. The High Court quashed the order and remanded the matter to the Reference Court to allow claimants an opportunity to adduce evidence regarding the land's market price.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award of the Reference Court is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Reference Court to decide within 6 months, allowing claimants an opportunity to adduce evidence. No interest on

Kashinath Lakula Bhosle and Another Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

cra169-17.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 169 OF 2017

¶4

1. Kashinath s/o Lakula Bhosale Age :Major, Occu: Agri

¶5

2.Venkat s/o Zattinga Gobade
(died)
Through Legal Heirs
Tarabai w/o Venkat Gobade
Age Major Occu:Agri
Both R/o Dadgi, Taluka …Applicants
Nilanga
District Latur

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Latur

¶8

2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, P. T. I. T. Latur

¶9

3. The Executive Engineer, Lower Terana Canal, Division, No.2, Latur

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

Mr.Vishwajit R.Jain(Kamboj),Advocate for the applicants
Mr. A. M.Phule, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Mr.Shyam C. Arora, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 3

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

1.With the consent of parties, the revision
application is taken up for final disposal.

¶14

2. Heard Mr.Jain,learned counsel for the applicants

¶15

Mr.Phule, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and

¶16

1/5

¶17

cra169-17.odt

¶18

Mr. Arora, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3.

¶19

3. It is the case of the applicants/claimants that
their land Gat No.35/1 admeasuring 46 R and Gat No.37/2
admeasuring 2 R situated at Village Dadgi, Taluka
Nilanga District Latur is acquired for the purpose of
Dadgi Lower Terna Left Canal. Notification under
section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on
03.09.2004 and the possession of the land has been
taken by private negotiation. Notification under
section 6 was published on 14.07.2005. According to
the claimants the compensation awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer is inadequate and therefore they
have made a Reference under section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, that was referred to the Joint Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga, registered as LAR
No.51/2012.

¶20

4. When the matter was posted for hearing, before
the reference court, the claimants have failed to
adduce their oral as well as to place documentary

¶21

evidence on record. On perusal of the reasons
recorded by the learned reference Court, it appears
that since both the parties have not adduced their oral

¶22

or documentary evidence, it was not possible for the

¶23

2/5

¶24

Reference Court to adjudicate the market price of the
acquired land.

¶25

5. The learned counsel appearing for the

¶26

applicants submits that the Advocate representing the
claimants in the Reference Court was not attentive to
the matter. He did not inform the claimants about the
stages of the proceedings nor he intimated that
evidence is required to be adduced in the matter and
the applicants/ claimants came to know about the order
passed by the Reference Court from one Advocate Mr.
Arun Patil from the village of the applicants.

¶27

6. On perusal of the reasons recorded by the

¶28

learned reference court, there is no reference in the
reasons that at the time of hearing or at the time of
judgment claimants or the Advocate appearing for them
was present in the Court or not. The reference court

¶29

has disposed of the reference simply on the ground that
no evidence is adduced by the claimants, holding that
the compensation awarded by the Land acquisition
officer is proper. Itiscontendedinthe

¶30

application that there was negligence on the part of
Advocate representing the applicants in the reference
court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶31

3/5

¶32

cra169-17.odt

¶33

case, it appears that the reference court has not
determined the market price of the acquired land in
absence of the evidence.

¶34

7. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants
submits that the matter be remanded to the Reference
Court and the claimants will be attentive in the
proceedings and will lead evidence. The learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.3 opposed the
application on the ground that the claimants were not
diligent in prosecuting the reference before the
Reference Court.

¶35

8. Anyhow, there may be some negligence on the part
of the Advocate of the claimants. However, looking to
the facts that immovable property of the applicants
has been acquired by the respondents for the purpose of
construction of percolation tank/canal, therefore one
opportunity must be given to the claimants to adduce
their evidence to show the actual market price of the
acquired land as on the date of notification under

¶36

section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the
claimants will not be entitled for interest/monetary
benefits for the period of delay which was sought to be
condoned in Civil Application No.634/2017. Hence,

4/5

cra169-17.odt

following order:

O R D E R

i. Judgment and award of the learned Jt. Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Nilanga in L.A.R. No. 51/2012
dated 28.08.2014 is quashed and set aside.

¶42

ii. The matter is remanded to the Reference Court for
its disposal in accordance with law.

¶43

iii. Learned Reference Court is requested to decide the
reference within a period of six months from the
date of appearance of the parties before it.

¶44

iv. The parties are directed to appear before the
learned Reference court on 13th November, 2017.

¶45

v. It is made clear that in case the reference of the
claimants is allowed, then the claimants will not
be entitled to claim interest/monetary benefits

¶46

on the enhanced amount of compensation as
indicated in the order dated 13th September, 2017
passed in Civil Application No. 634/2017.

¶47

9.Civil Revision Application is accordingly

¶48

disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶49

JPC

¶50

5/5

Kashinath Lakula Bhosle and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through the Collector of Latur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath Lakula Bhosle and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through the Collector of Latur and Others

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

Dnyaneshwar S/O Kundalik Sathe Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Collector and Another

Vitthal S/O Panda Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Executive Engineer, Majalgaon Canal Division No. 10, Parbhani Under G.M.I.D.C Aurangabad and Ors. Vs Gangadhar Haribhau Katare

Babu Bhagwant Gobade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector of Latur and Others

Raippa Zating Gobade (Died) through It S L.Rs. Rajabai Raippa Gobade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector of Latur and Others

Latabai Shantaram Mahajan (Mali) and Ors. Vs the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.