Allowed

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

Bombay HC11 Oct 2017CRA/73/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Revision Application, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad quashed an order dismissing a land acquisition reference due to the claimant's absence. The court held that since immovable property was acquired, the matter must be adjudicated on merits, granting the claimant an opportunity to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order dated 19.01.2013 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 757/2009 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Reference Court for disposal on merits with an oppor

Dnyaneshwar S/O Kundalik Sathe Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

911.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

911 CRA NO. 73 OF 2017

¶4

DNYANESHWAR S/O KUNDALIK SATHE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Ingale Vivekanand V.
AGP for Respondent No. 1 : A.M. Phule.
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mrs. Reddy Ranjana D.

¶9

CORAM: K. L. WADANE, J.

¶10

 DATE:11th October, 2017

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

1. With the consent of the parties, this Civil
Revision Application is taken up for final hearing.

¶13

2. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the

¶14

applicant and the learned A.G.P. appearing for the
respondents/State.

¶15

3. The applicant was owner of land Sy. No. 33

¶16

admeasuring 03-H 54 Are, situated at village Makani Tq.
Lohara, District Osmanabad. The aforesaid property is
acquired by the acquiring body for the purpose of
Construction of Irrigation Colony at village Makani Tq.

¶17

Lohara. It is alleged that, the Special Land

¶18

Acquisition officer awarded meagre amount of

¶19

compensation for the acquired land of the claimant,
therefore, claimant has preferred reference under

¶20

1/5

¶21

911.odt

¶22

section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and it was
initially filed in the office of Special Land
Acquisition Officer at Osmanabad who referred it to the
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, and after
formation of Civil Judge, Senior Division Court at
Omerga the aforesaid reference came to be transferred
to the Omerga Court.

¶23

4. It is further contended that, at the time of the
hearing of the matter the claimant and his learned
advocate remained absent and failed to adduce his
evidence, therefore, the learned Reference Court
dismissed the Land Acquisition Reference No. 757/2009
on 19.01.2013. The learned counsel appearing for the
present applicant/original claimant submits that the
matter needs to be remanded.

¶24

5. Learned A.G.P. for the respondents/State opposes
the request on the ground that sufficient opportunity
was given to the claimant to adduce their evidence.
Learned A.G.P. further submits that the claimant and
his advocate remained absent at the time of hearing and
failed to adduce any sort of oral as well as
documentary evidence to support his claim. Therefore it

¶25

cannot be said that no opportunity was given.

¶26

2/5

¶27

911.odt

¶28

6. I have carefully gone through the reasons
recorded by the Reference Court, particularly, in para
No. 15 of the judgment, wherein, it is mentioned that
the claimant though challenges the award but failed to
adduce oral evidence in support of his claim. The
claimant though given sufficient opportunity failed to
adduce oral evidence to substantiate his claim and

¶29

therefore in absence of evidence from the side of
claimant, the compensation awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer found to be proper and reasonable.

¶30

7. From the reasons recorded by the Reference
Court, it appears that, the claimant and his learned
advocate were absent therefore no oral as well as
documentary evidence was adduced to to prove the claim.
In spite of the fact, I am of the opinion, since the
immovable property of the claimant is acquired
therefore, the matter needs to be adjudicated on
merits.

¶31

8. The learned counsel appearing for the

¶32

applicant/claimant relied upon the observations in case reported in 2011 (3) Mh.L.J.(Narayan Deorao Gore V/s. State of Maharashtra ) to contend that, Civil Revision Application is maintainable when the parties have not

¶33

3/5

¶34

911.odt

¶35

adduced their evidence in the Reference Court.

¶36

9. I have gone through the observations of the

¶37

above cited case and I am of the opinion these
observations are applicable to the facts of the present
case.

¶38

10. In view of the above, I am of the opinion an
opportunity must be given to the claimant to adduce his
evidence. Therefore, matter needs to be remanded.
While remanding the matter it is to be noted that at
the time of condonation of delay in filing the Civil
Revision application this Court passed an order that
the claimant/applicant will not be entitled for the
monetary benefits of interest during the period of
delay which is sought to be condoned. While deciding
the Reference, the Reference Court has to take note of
the order passed by this Court while condonation of
delay.

¶39

11. Civil Revision Application is allowed.

¶40

12. Judgment and Order passed in Land Acquisition

¶41

Reference No. 757/2009 dated 19.01.2013 is hereby
quashed and set aside.

¶42

13. The matter is remanded to the Reference Court

¶43

4/5

¶44

911.odt

¶45

for disposal in accordance with law. Learned Reference
Court shall give opportunity to both the sides to
adduce their evidence and after hearing both the sides
the Reference Court shall decide the reference within a
period of six months from the date of the appearance of
the parties.

¶46

14. Parties are directed to remain present in the
Reference Court on 27.11.2017. No separate notices are
required.

¶47

15. Civil Revision Application is disposed of.

¶48

mkd

¶49

5/5

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

The Ex. Engineer, Sina Kolegaon Project Division, Paranda Dist-Osmanabad and Ors. Vs Sallauddin Shahabuddin Mujawar

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Sunanda Nagnath Pawar

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Sunanda Nagnath Pawar

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

The Ex. Engineer, Irrigation Project Majbutikar Division, Omerga Thr M.P.D. Osmanabad and Ors. Vs Babu Bhima Mali (Died) Thr Lrs Suman and Ors.