Allowed

Uttam Bhaurao More v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2017FA/1050/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Land Acquisition appeal partly, quashed the trial court's dismissal of the reference petition on grounds of non-evidence, and remanded the matter to the Reference Court directing it to allow the appellant an opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence to substantiate his claim regarding inadequate compensation for acquired land.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed; Impugned judgment quashed; Matter remanded to Trial Court to allow appellant to lead oral and documentary evidence.

Uttam Bhaurao More Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

904 fa.1050.14.odt

¶3

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2014

¶5

Uttam s/o Bhaurao More.

¶6

... APPELLANT

¶7

V E R S U S

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and another.

¶9

... RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mrs. P. G. Sontakke, with Mr. G. K. Sontakke, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.S.P.Sonpawle, AGP for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J. DATE : 17^th January, 2017.

¶12

Per Court:

¶13

. Heard finally with consent at admission stage.

¶14

2 Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27^th

¶15

August, 2008 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division,

¶16

Ahmedpur in LAR No.121 of 2002, the original Claimant has preferred this appeal.

¶17

3 Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

¶18

The land owned and possessed by the Appellant /

¶19

Claimant came to be acquired for the purpose of construction of

¶20

¶21

904 fa.1050.14.odt

¶22

Salgara percolation tank by notification under Section 4 dated 9^th April, 1996 and the award dated 27^th May, 1999, the Appellant / Claimant has preferred LAR No.121 of 2002 on the ground that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded inadequate compensation for the acquired land.

¶23

4 The learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmedpur vide its impugned judgment and award dated 27^th August, 2008 dismissed the reference petition mainly on the ground that the Appellant / Claimant has not adduced any evidence. Hence, this appeal.

¶24

5 The learned counsel for the Appellant / Claimant submits that from the same award, the other agriculturists preferred land acquisition references and the same Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmedpur by its common judgment and award dated 30^th January, 2009 in LAR No.122 of 2002 alongwith connected land acquisition references partly allowed the said reference petitions and directed the State to pay the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,05,000/- per Hectare alongwith all the statutory benefits. The learned counsel submits that in fact, the reference petition filed by the present

¶25

¶26

904 fa.1050.14.odt

¶27

Appellant / Claimant should have taken up and decided alongwith the said group. However, it was separately decided by the Reference Court and dismissed mainly on the ground that the Appellant / Claimant has not adduced any evidence.

¶28

6 The learned AGP appearing for the Respondents submits that the Appellant / original Claimant has not adduced any evidence and the learned Judge of the Trial Court has disposed of the reference petition on merits. No interference is required. The learned AGP in the alternate submits that event if this Court remands the matter to the Trial Court, the note may be taken that the delay occurred in filing the present appeal has been condoned by this Court on the ground that the Appellant / Claimant would not claim interest for the delayed period in case any enhancement in compensation is granted.

¶29

7 On careful perusal of the common judgment and award passed in LAR No.122 of 2002 alongwith connected reference petitions, it appears that those reference petitions have been preferred by the agriculturists from the same award and after considering the evidence adduced by the Petitioners therein, the

¶30

¶31

904 fa.1050.14.odt

¶32

learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmedpur has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,05,000/- per Hectare for the land acquired. The reference petition filed by the present Appellant came to be dismissed on the ground that he has filed to adduce evidence.

¶33

8 In view of this, in my considered opinion, the Appellant / original Claimant may be given one more chance to substantiate his claim before the Reference Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

I. The appeal is hereby partly allowed.

¶36

II. The judgment and award dated 27^th August, 2008 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmedpur in LAR No.121 of 2002, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶37

III. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court with the following directions:

¶38

a) Re-admit Land Acquisition Reference No.121 of 2002 to its original number.

¶39

b) The Appellant / Claimant is permitted to lead

¶40

¶41

904 fa.1050.14.odt

¶42

the oral and documentary evidence in support

¶43

of his case.

¶44

c) The Respondents are also at liberty to lead the

¶45

oral and documentary evidence in rebuttal.

¶46

IV. It is made clear that in view of the undertaking given by the Appellant / Claimant, the Trial Court shall take a note that the Appellant / Claimant would not be entitled to claim any interest for the delayed period occurred in filing the appeal, in case the Reference Court grants enhancement in the compensation.

¶47

V. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 8^th February, 2017.

¶48

VI. Record and proceedings be returned to the Reference Court forthwith.

¶49

VII. Pending civil application stands disposed of.

¶50

ndm

¶51

[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ]

Uttam Bhaurao More v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Bhaurao More 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra Madhukar Nalte Vs Union of India

M/S Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ankush Maruti Gaikwad and Others

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sitabai Ramkisan Baglane and Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Devanand Kashirao Bhalerao and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Yeshwant Chindhu Paradhi

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kedar Bhalchandra Pardhi