Remanded

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

Bombay HC12 Oct 2017CRA/170/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court via CRP quashed Joint Civil Judge order in land compensation reference due to lack of evidence and remanded matter for fresh disposal within six months, barring future interest claims on enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Judgment and award of learned Jt. Civil Judge in L.A.R. No.54/2012 dated 28.08.2014. Remanded matter for disposal within six months subject to condition of no interest on enhanced amount.

Raippa Zating Gobade (Died) through It S L.Rs. Rajabai… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

cra170-17.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 170 OF 2017

¶4

1. Raippa s/o Zating Gobade (Died) Through His legal Heirs A) Rajabai w/o Raippa Gobade Age :64, Occu: Household B) Babruwan s/o Raippa Gobade Age 46 years, Occu: Agri.

¶5

2. Narsing s/o Tulshiram Gobade Age Major Occu:Agri

¶6

3. Rajendra s/o Angadrao Bobade Age Major, Occu: Agriculture

¶7

4. Sheshrao s/o Baliram Gobade Age Major Occu: Agriculture

¶8

5. Waman w/o Baliram Gobade Age Major, Occu: Agriculture

¶9

6. Shivaji s/o Vithoba Gobade Age Major, Occu: Agriculture

¶10

7. Sgururabg s/o Zating Gobade Age Major Occu: Agriculture

¶11

8 Sushilabai w/o Raosaheb Pawar Age Major Occu: Household All R/o Dadgi, Taluka Nilanga … Applicants District Latur VERSUS

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

Mr.Vishwajit R.Jain(Kamboj),Advocate for the applicants

¶16

1/6

¶17

cra170-17.odt

¶18

Mr. A. M.Phule, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Mr.Shyam C. Arora, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 3

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

1.Not on board. Taken on board. With the consent
of parties, the revision application is taken up for
final disposal.

¶21

2. Heard Mr.Jain,learned counsel for the applicants
Mr.Phule, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and
Mr. Arora, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3.

¶22

3. It is the case of the applicants/claimants that
their land Gat Nos.36 admeasuring 4, Gat 34 No.
Admeasuring 12 R Gat No.37/2 Admeasuring 06 R, Gat

¶23

No.38/2 Admeasuring 09 R, Gat No. 37/4 Admeasuring 08 R
Gat No. 75/2 Admeasuring 12 R Gat No.75/3 Admeasuring

¶24

14R and Gat No.38/1 Admeasuring 12 R situated at

¶25

Village Dadgi, Taluka Nilanga District Latur is
acquired for the purpose of Dadgi Lower Terna Left

¶26

Canal. Notification under section 4 of the Land

¶27

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

¶28

2/6

¶29

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.54/2012.

¶30

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
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

¶31

or documentary evidence, it was not possible for the
Reference Court to adjudicate the market price of the
acquired land.

¶32

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.

¶33

Arun Patil from the village of the applicants.

¶34

3/6

¶35

cra170-17.odt

¶36

6. On perusal of the reasons recorded by the
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
has disposed of the reference simply on the ground that
no evidence is adduced by the claimants, holding that

¶37

the compensation awarded by the Land acquisition
officer is proper. It is contended in the application
that there was negligence on the part of Advocate
representing the applicants in the reference court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it
appears that the reference court has not determined the
market price of the acquired land in absence of the
evidence.

¶38

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.

¶39

4/6

¶40

cra170-17.odt

¶41

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

¶42

acquired land as on the date of notification under
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.2414/2017. Hence,
following order:

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

i. Judgment and award of the learned Jt. Civil Judge,

¶45

Senior Division, Nilanga in L.A.R. No. 54/2012
dated 28.08.2014 is quashed and set aside.

¶46

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

¶47

iii. Learned Reference Court is requested to decide the

¶48

reference within a period of six months from the
date of appearance of the parties before it.

¶49

iv. The parties are directed to appear before the

¶50

5/6

¶51

cra170-17.odt

¶52

learned Reference court on 13th November, 2017.

¶53

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
on the enhanced amount of compensation as
indicated in the order dated 13th September, 2017
passed in Civil Application No. 2414/2017.

¶54

9.Civil Revision Application is accordingly
disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶55

JPC

¶56

6/6

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raippa Zating Gobade (Died) through It S L.Rs. Rajabai Raippa Gobade and Others 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

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

Babu Bhagwant 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.