Allowed

Janardhan Hanumantrao Patil Salunke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Mar 2018WP/404/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged Additional Collector's orders disposing of their land reference applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act due to non-payment of court fees. The High Court held that Section 18 does not mandate timely fee payment before disposal and directed quashing of orders, requiring the Collector to refer applications to the Civil Court conditionally.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 10.11.2015 set aside; respondents directed to refer applications to Civil Court within four weeks; petitioners directed to pay fees within three months.

Janardhan Hanumantrao Patil Salunke and Others Vs the State… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

wp404.18

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.404 OF 2018

¶5

1. Janardhan S/o. Hanumantrao .. PETITIONERS Patil @ Salunke Age-60 years, Occu-Agril,

¶6

2. Gunwant S/o. Shidram Chunge, Age-60 years, Occu-Agril,

¶7

3. Pavitra W/o. Satyawan Surwase, Age-46 years, Occu-Agril & Household,

¶8

4. Surekha W/o. Baliram Surwase, Age-49 years, Occu-Agril & Household,

¶9

5. Baliram S/o. Nagnath Surwase, Age-54 years, Occu-Agril,

¶10

6. Satyawan S/o. Nagnath Surwase, Age-51 years, Occu-Agril,

¶11

7. Bhima S/o. Ambaji Jadhav (died) Through his Legal heirs

¶12

7-A) Smt.Girjabai W/o. Baliram Jadhav, Age-69 years, Occu-Agril,

¶13

7-B) Sandipan S/o. Bhima Jadhav, Age-50 years, Occu-Agril,

¶14

7-C) Arun S/o. Bhima Jadhav (died) through his Legal Heirs

¶15

7-C-i) Prashant Arun Jadhav

¶16

Age-24 years, Occu-Agril,

¶17

( 2 ) wp404.18 7-C-ii) Pravin Arun Jadhav Age-24 years, Occu-Agril,

¶18

7-D) Kumar S/o. Bhima Jadhav, Age-46 years, Occu-Agril,

¶19

7-E) Damayanti W/o. Ganesh Landge, Age-43 years, Occu-Agril,

¶20

8. Kerba S/o. Ambaji Jadhav (died) through his Legal Heirs

¶21

8-A) Smt. Lochanabai W/o. Kerba Jadhav, Age-70 years, Occu-Agril,

¶22

8-B) Subhash S/o. Kerba Jadhav, Age-52 years, Occu-Agril,

¶23

8-C) Ganpati S/o. Kerba Jadhav, Age-50 years, Occu-Agril,

¶24

8-D) Tejabai W/o. Ankush Babale, Age-46 years, Occu-Agril,

¶25

9. Hanmant Buva @ Somparvat Guru, Shivparvat Buva (died) through His Legal representatives 9-A) Suresh S/o. Ganpatrao Thote, Age-58 years, Occu-Agril,

¶26

9-B) Prakash S/o. Ganpatrao Thote, Age-55 years, Occu-Agril,

¶27

9-C) Ravindra S/o. Ganpatrao Thote, Age-51 years, Occu-Agril, All R/o. Murta (Manmodi), Tq. Tuljapur,

( 3 ) wp404.18

Dist. Osmanabad

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra, ... RESPONDENTS Through its Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶32

2. The Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) Manjara Project, Osmanabad, Collector Office, Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad

¶33

3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Krishna Khore Vikas Mahamandal, Anand Nagar, Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad

¶34

4. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Project, Strengthening Division, Omerga, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad. Presently Osmanabad Medium Project (OMP) Krishna Valley Development Corporation, Anand Nagar, Osmanbad

¶35

Mr.P.S.Chavan, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr.S.S.Dande, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Mr.S.G.Karlekar, Advocate for respondent No.4

¶36

CORAM:S.S. SHINDE &

¶37

S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
RESERVED ON:24.01.2018
PRONOUNCED ON:21.03.2018

¶38

J U D G M E N T [PER: S.M. GAVHANE, J.]

¶39

.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final
hearing.

¶40

2.By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed to
quash and set aside orders dated 10.11.2015 (Exh.K
Collectively) passed by respondent No.2 the Additional
Collector (Land Acquisition) Manjra Project, Osmanabad
disposing of their Land Acquisition References under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Land Acquisition Act') to enhance the
compensation, as per the provision under Section 18 (3)
of the Land Acquisition Act and further sought directions
to respondent No.2 to refer their applications (Land
Acquisition References) to the competent Civil Court at
Osmanabad for determination/decision.

¶41

3.Case of the petitioners is that the lands Block
Nos. 152 adm. 0-Hector 20-R, 139 adm.0-Hector 60-R, 146/1
adm. 1-Hector 41-R, 146 adm. 1-Hector 60-R, 146/2 adm. 0-
Hector 80-R, 276 adm. 1-Hector 14-R, 281 adm. 0-Hector
22-R, 141 & 284 adm. 0-Hector 5-R and 0-Hector 22-R and

¶42

293 adm. 4-Hector 7-R, all situated at village Murta
(Manmodi), Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad are respectively
owned by petitioner Nos. 1 to 9 (hereinafter the said
lands are referred to as the 'said lands'). The said
lands have been acquired for construction of storage tank
of village Murta as per the proposal submitted by
respondent No.4 the Executive Engineer to respondent No.3
the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Respondent No.3
published notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act in the Government Gazette on 22.01.1998.
Thereafter, by notification dated 22.02.1999 the
respondents after satisfying that the said lands are
required for public purpose, made declaration to that
effect under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Thereafter, respondent No.3 after completing the joint
measurement has issued notice under Section 9 of the Land
Acquisition Act to the land holders. Though the notice
under Section 9 was not served on the petitioners, still
they submitted their oral and written objections thereby
claiming the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/-
per acre. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer
without considering their claims and market value of the
said lands/acquired lands has passed the award in absence
ofthepetitionerson19.06.2006infile
No.1997/LNQ/KK/KAVI/CR-13 and thereby awarded inadequate

¶43

compensation. After receipt of notice under Section 12(2)
of the Land Acquisition Act on 26.08.2006 the
claimants/petitioners have withdrawn the compensation
under protest and within limitation filed applications
before respondent No.2 the Additional Collector (Land
Acquisition) on 03.10.2006 for reference under Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the
petitioners, because of the financial constraints
alongwith their reference applications they had filed
separate applications seeking time to pay required court
fees.

¶44

4.The petitioners have further contended that
after they have filed reference applications as above
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, after
waiting for considerable period in the month of March,
2017 they inquired about reference applications to their
Advocate at Osmanabad. In the last week of March, 2017
they approached respondent No.2 the Additional Collector
(Land Acquisition) to verify their reference
applications. After scrutiny of the file it was informed
that their applications for reference have been disposed
of by respondent No.2 by orders dated 10.11.2015
observing that in spite of various written communications
to deposit the Court fees the claimants/petitioners have

¶45

failed to deposit the same and therefore as per the
provision of Section 18 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act
their reference applications have been disposed of.

¶46

5.It is the above said orders dated 10.11.2015
(Exh.K Collectively 9-orders) have been challenged by
filing present writ petition on several grounds mentioned
in the writ petition and mainly on the ground that the
Land Acquisition Act is self contained code. It does not
speak about payment of any Court fees. It requires only
that the applications under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act should be made within limitation
prescribed thereunder and therefore it is clear that
payment of deficit Court fees is not a condition
precedent to refer the applications/land reference
applications to the competent Civil Court.

¶47

6.The respondents have not filed reply.

¶48

7.We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for
the petitioners, learned AGP appearing for respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned Advocate appearing for
respondent No.4. With their assistance we have perused
the pleadings in the petition, documents and impugned
orders (Exh.K Collectively) produced by the petitioners.

¶49

8.As the respondents have not filed reply to the
petition and controverted the contentions of the
petitioners it is clear that the said lands owned by the
petitioners as observed earlier have been acquired by
respondent No.3 the Special Land Acquisition Officer for
construction of Murta storage tank on the proposal
submitted by respondent No.4 the Executive Engineer by
award dated 19.06.2006 and after withdrawing the
compensation under protest of acquisition of the said
lands the petitioners had filed land reference
applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
on 03.10.2006 before the respondent No.2 said fact is
also clear from the copies of land reference applications
produced by the petitioners.

¶50

9.It is also not in dispute that by impugned
orders dated 10.11.2015 (Exh.K Collectively) respondent
No.2 the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) disposed
of the land reference applications referred to above
filed by the petitioners. On perusal of the impugned
orders it is seen that the petitioners had filed land
reference applications under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act on 03.10.2006. The petitioners were
informed in writing to pay the Court fees as land

¶51

( 9 ) wp404.18

¶52

reference applications were filed without Court fees, but
the petitioners failed to make compliance within
stipulated time. So also, they have not filed written
explanation or paid the court fees. Therefore, their land
reference applications were disposed of as per section
18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act by respondent No.2 the
Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) Manjra Project,
Osmanabad.

¶53

10. Referring the impugned orders the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners relying upon the ratio laid down by this Court [ Coram : Marlapalle B.H. & Tahilramani V.K. JJ. ] in the case of Sambhaji Manaji Chate & another Vs State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2003(2)MH.L.J.661 submitted that the petitioners are required to pay Court fees on application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act but the amount of Court fees could be remitted / deposited even before the Reference Court and therefore, respondent No.2 should have passed a conditional order on the applications/references preferred by the petitioners and should have forwarded the reference applications of the petitioners to the Civil Court. In the case of Sambhaji Chate (supra) referring the decision in the case of Kashi Ram Namdeo Zambro Vs State of Maharashtra reported

¶54

in 1996(1)SCC 289 in paragraph Nos. 10,11 and 12 it was observed as under:-

¶55

“10. In view of the clarification given by the Apex Court, it is clear that the person preferring an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is required to pay the Court fees. However, this amount could be remitted/deposited even before the Reference Court and, therefore, it is appropriate for the S.L.A.O. to pass a conditional order on the application for reference preferred by the petitioners and to forward it to the Civil Court.

¶56

We, therefore, direct the reference to be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Court fee shall be paid by the petitioners within a period of three months before the Reference Court and unless such compliance is made, the reference shall not be registered.

¶57

Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. Order accordingly.”

¶58

11.In the present case respondent No.2 had disposed
of the land reference applications of the petitioners on
failure of the petitioners to pay the Court fees and he

¶59

did not pass a conditional order in the light of observation of this Court in the case of Sambhaji Chate (supra) . Therefore, when the petitioners can pay the Court fees even before the Reference Court the impugned orders disposing of the reference applications of the petitioners by the respondent No.2 the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) are not sustainable and they are liable to be quashed and set aside and directions are required to be given to the petitioners to pay the Court fees within stipulated time before the Reference Court by allowing the writ petition. Therefore, we pass following order.

¶60

O R D E R

¶61

A. The writ petition is allowed.

¶62

B.The impugned order/orders dated 10.11.2015 (Exh.K
Collectively) passed on the land reference applications
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of the
petitioners by respondent No.2 are set aside.

¶63

C.We direct respondent No.2 to refer the land
reference applications of the petitioners within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order to
the competent Civil Court/Reference Court, Osmanabad.
Thereafter, the petitioners shall pay the Court Fees

¶64

payable on their respective applications within a period
of three months before the Reference Court and unless
such compliance is made by the petitioners, the
references (LAR) shall not be registered.

¶65

12.Rule is made absolute in above terms with no
order as to cost.

¶66

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.][S.S.SHINDE,J.]

¶67

VishalK/ wp404.18

Janardhan Hanumantrao Patil Salunke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janardhan Hanumantrao Patil Salunke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Vasant Dnyanoba Darade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Asadulla Khan Maheboob Khan Vs Municipal Council Kinwat through Chief Officer

Kantu Shankar Rathod and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil Banarasidas Jindal Died through Lrs Anita Anil Jindal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajesh Ramesh Sangore and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Janaradhan Chandrabhanji Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others