Allowed

Vishnu Kashinath More v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Oct 2018FA/3265/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Reference Court's dismissal of a compensation reference due to a technical error in the land number. The court remanded the matter to be decided afresh after correcting the record. No interest was awarded for the delay caused by the applicant's initial mistake.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to the Reference Court to permit amendment of the reference application and decide it afresh; interest for the pendency period denied.

Vishnu Kashinath More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

9-FA-3265-2018 Judg.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 3265 OF 2018

¶5

Vishnu S/o Kashinath More,
Age 52 yrs occ. Agril.,
R/o Mapegaon (Bu.), Tq.Partur,
Dist. Jalna...Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra Through the collector, Jalna.

¶8

2. Special Land Acquisition Officer (B & C), Jalna.

¶9

3. The Executive Engineer, Lower Dudhna Project, Selu, Tq. Selu, Dist. Parbhani ..Respondents

¶10

...

¶11

Mr. Vijay B. Jogdandpatil, Advocate for the
Appellant.

¶12

Mr. R.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr. R.B. Bagul, AGP for Respondent/State.

¶13

...

¶14

CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
 DATE : 30th OCTOBER, 2018.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

¶16

.The appeal is taken up for final disposal

¶17

at the admission stage with consent of the learned
counsel for the parties.

¶18

2.The appellant is the owner of land gut

¶19

no.65/2 ad-measuring 4 H 47 R situated at village
Mapegaon (Bk), Taluka Partur, District Jalna. Out

¶20

of the said land, land ad-measuring 3 H 92 R was
acquired by the Government for the purpose of Lower

¶21

9-FA-3265-2018 Judg.odt

¶22

(2)

¶23

Dudhna Project. Since, the SLAO offered a meager
amount amount of compensation to the present
appellant, he preferred the application under
Section 18 of the Act to the Collector, which was

¶24

in turn forwarded to the District Court for its
adjudication. It was registered as L.A.R. No.479
of 2011. The learned Reference Court vide the
judgment and award passed on 22.08.2017 has
dismissed the said reference application against
which the appellant has preferred the present
appeal.

¶25

3.The Reference Court has dismissed the
reference application on the ground that the
applicant has not mentioned in his reference
application the correct number of the acquired land

¶26

and in the circumstances has recorded further
observations that he has failed to substantiate as

¶27

to for which land the enhanced compensation was
demanded by him. The learned counsel submitted

¶28

that it was an inadvertent mistake on part of the
applicant and the said mistake could not be noticed
also by the counsel who was appearing for the
applicant before the Trial Court. The learned
counsel submitted that in the proceedings before

¶29

9-FA-3265-2018 Judg.odt

¶30

(3)

¶31

the Reference Court everywhere gut no. has been
wrongly mentioned as 62/2 to be owned by present
appellant, whereas in fact gut no.65/2 is owned by
the present appellant and out of the said gut no. 3

¶32

H 92 R has been acquired by the Government. The
learned counsel submitted that because of the
technical mistake which has occurred at the hands
of applicant, he cannot be deprived of the due
amount of compensation. The learned counsel in the
circumstances has prayed for remanding the matter
back to the Reference Court and direct the
Reference Court to allow the applicant to amend the
application under Section 18 of the Act and to put
necessary evidence in support of his contention and
to decide the reference application afresh.

¶33

4.Shri Bagul, the learned AGP submitted
that primary burden was on the appellant to

¶34

specifically mention the accurate number of the
acquired land as well as area of the said land in
respect of which he was demanding the enhanced
compensation towards acquisition of the said land.
The learned AGP submitted that no fault can be
found with the impugned judgment since, there was
no evidence before the said Court that the present

¶35

9-FA-3265-2018 Judg.odt

¶36

(4)

¶37

appellant was the owner of gut no.65/2.

¶38

5.I have given due consideration to the

¶39

submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties. I have perused the impugned judgment and
the evidence on record. I have also perused other
materials on record. The learned counsel has
tendered across the bar 7/12 extract of the subject
land and the same is also taken on record.

¶40

6.It is apparent that the reference
application has not been decided by the Reference
Court on merits. It is further revealed that the
Reference Court has held that the appellant-
claimant has failed to prove that he is the owner
of gut no.65/2 and that the said land has been
acquired by the Government for the purpose of Lower

¶41

Dudhna Project. As was submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant, it was a genuine
inadvertent mistake may be on part of the applicant
or to some extent on part of the learned counsel
appearing for the applicant that gut no. was
wrongly mentioned as 62/2 claiming the same to be
owned by present applicant and stated to be
acquired for the purpose of Lower Dudhna Project.

¶42

9-FA-3265-2018 Judg.odt

¶43

(5)

¶44

I have perused 7/12 extract which is now tendered
across the bar. I have also perused the discussion
made by the reference Court.

¶45

7. It is not disputed even by the learned

¶46

AGP that gut no.65/2 belonging to the present
applicant has been acquired for the purpose of

¶47

Lower Dudhna Project. The said gut no. is
mentioned in the 'E' Statement also. In the
aforesaid circumstances, it appears to me that
though the gut no. was wrongly mentioned by the
applicant, the fact remains that land gut no.65/2
owned by the appellant has been acquired for Lower
Dudhna Project and that applicant has not received
any enhanced compensation of the said land. The
applicant cannot be deprived from his right to
receive due compensation on such technical mistake.
From the averments of the award as well as other
documents, it is revealed that the land belonging
to the present applicant bearing gut no.65/2 ad-

¶48

measuring 3.92 R has been acquired by the
respondents-State for Lower Dudhna Project.

¶49

8.In the circumstances, I deem it

¶50

appropriate to remit the matter back to the

¶51

9-FA-3265-2018 Judg.odt

¶52

(6)

¶53

Reference Court with a direction that Reference
Court shall permit the appellant to carry out the
necessary amendment in his reference application as
well as other related documents and if so required,
further permit him to adduce necessary evidence in
order to substantiate his contentions in the
reference application and to decide the reference
application afresh.

¶54

9.Having considered the fact that the

¶55

acquisition is of the year 1994, the Reference
Court is requested to decide the reference
application as expeditiously as possible preferably
within a period of six months.

¶56

10.Since the matter has remained pending
since long and in view of the fact that the
referenceapplicationcontainingincorrect

¶57

information therein was filed by the applicant on
01.08.2011, the applicant is dis-entitled from

¶58

claiming any interest either under Section 28 of

¶59

the Act or under Section 34 of the Act for the

¶60

period between 01.08.2011 till this date in the
case the amount of compensation is enhanced by the
Reference Court.

¶61

9-FA-3265-2018 Judg.odt

¶62

(7)

¶63

11. The appeal thus stands allowed in the

¶64

aforesaid terms.

¶65

 (P.R. BORA, J.)

¶66

Mujaheed//

Vishnu Kashinath More v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Kashinath More v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Sk Maheboob Sk Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sk Maula Sk Maheboob Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sk. Amir Shaikh Mahebob Vs the State of Mah. and Anr.

Mariba Yada Ingole Deceased Thro. Lrs. Arun Mariba Ingole and Others Vs the Executive Engineer ( Architecture), (Building and Repairs Division), Osmanabad and Anr.

Mangala Manohar Ganjare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Executive Engineer ( Architecture), (Building and Repairs Division), Osmanabad Vs Mariba Yada Ingole Deceased Thro. Lrs. Arun Mariba Ingole and Others