Allowed

Govind Venkatrao Kottawar v. State of Maharashtra through District Collector, Nanded and Others.

Bombay HC14 Jun 2019CRA/153/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed revision applications challenging the refusal of the Deputy Collector to forward reference applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. The court held that since there was no evidence of service of the award, the date of payment of compensation marked the date of knowledge, deeming all appeals to be filed within the limitation period.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order refusing to forward the reference applications was set aside. Respondents were directed to forward the applications to the civil court for adjudication.

Govind Venkatrao Kottawar Vs State of Maharashtra through… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

CRA 152/2016 & ORS.

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.152 OF 2016

¶5

Sow. Pushpa Ratan Sonule
Age 44 years, Occ. Household
R/o c/o T.K. Rawate,
Patbhandhare Nagar,
Taroda (Bk), Tq & Dist. Nanded= APPICANT
 (Orig. Claimant)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through District Collector, Nanded.

¶8

2. The Dy. Collector Land Acquisition PT MIW-2, Nanded

¶9

3. The Executive Engineer Public Works Division, Nanded = RESPONDENTS (Orig. Respondents)

¶10

 -----

¶11

Mr Kurundkar Sunil V.,Adv. For Applicant;
Ms P V Diggikar, AGP for Respondents-State;

¶12

WITH

¶13

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.153 OF 2016

¶14

Govind Venkatrao Kottawar

¶15

Age 49 years, Occ. Business
R/o CIDCO, New Nanded
Tq. Nanded & Dist. Nanded.= APPICANT
 (Orig. Claimant)

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

1. The State of Maharashtra Through District collector, Nanded

¶18

2. The Dy. Collector Land Acquisition PT MIW-2, Nanded

¶19

CRA 152/2016 & ORS.

¶20

(2)

¶21

3. The Executive Engineer Public Works Division, Nanded = RESPONDENTS (Orig. Respondents)

¶22

Mr Kurundkar Sunil V.,Adv. for Applicant;

¶23

Mr A B Chate,AGP for Respondents-State;

¶24

WITH

¶25

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.154 OF 2016

¶26

Sow. Snehalata Dhondiram Mathpati
Age 51 years, Occ. Household
R/o Ashirwadnagar, Taroda (Bk)
Tq. Nanded & Dist. Nanded = APPLICANT

¶27

 (Orig. Claimant)

¶28

VERSUS

¶29

1. The State of Maharashtra Through District collector, Nanded

¶30

2. The Dy. Collector Land Acquisition PT MIW-2, Nanded

¶31

3. The Executive Engineer Public Works Division, Nanded = RESPONDENTS (Orig. Respondents)

¶32

Mr Kurundkar Sunil V.,Adv. for Applicant;

¶33

Mr S K Tambe,AGP for Respondents-State;

¶34

WITH

¶35

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.155 OF 2016

¶36

Hanmanlu S/o Lachmayya Namanwar

¶37

Age 75 years,
Occ. Private Medical Practitioner
R/o Degloor,Tq. Degloor
Dist. Nanded.= APPLICANT

¶38

CRA 152/2016 & ORS.

¶39

(3)

¶40

 (Orig. Claimant)

¶41

VERSUS

¶42

1. The State of Maharashtra Through District collector, Nanded

¶43

2. The Dy. Collector Land Acquisition PT MIW-2, Nanded

¶44

3. The Executive Engineer Public Works Division, Nanded = RESPONDENTS (Orig. Respondents)

¶45

Mr Kurundkar Sunil V.,Adv. for Applicant;

¶46

Ms P V Diggikar, AGP for Respondents-State;

¶47

WITH

¶48

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 156 OF 2016

¶49

Sow. Gangutai Namdevrao Zampalwad
Age 44 years,
Occ. Agri. & Household
R/o Janki Nagar, Near Saibaba Primary School,
Hanuman gadh, Nanded,
Tq and Dist. Nanded= APPLICANT

¶50

= APPLICANT (Orig. Claimant)

¶51

VERSUS

¶52

1. The State of Maharashtra Through District collector, Nanded

¶53

2. The Dy. Collector Land Acquisition PT MIW-2, Nanded

¶54

3. The Executive Engineer Public Works Division, Nanded = RESPONDENTS (Orig. Respondents)

¶55

CRA 152/2016 & ORS.

¶56

(4)

¶57

Mr Kurundkar Sunil V.,Adv. for Applicant;

¶58

Mr A B Chate; AGP for Respondents-State;

¶59

WITH

¶60

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.157 OF 2016

¶61

Mahesh Ashok Kadge

¶62

Age 29 years, Occ. Business
R/o Hanegaon,Tq. Degloor
Dist. Nanded.= APPLICANT
 (Orig. Claimant)

¶63

VERSUS

¶64

1. The State of Maharashtra Through District collector, Nanded

¶65

2. The Dy. Collector Land Acquisition PT MIW-2, Nanded

¶66

3.The Executive Engineer
Public Works Division,
Nanded = RESPONDENTS
 (Orig. Respondents)
----

¶67

Mr Kurundkar Sunil V.,Adv. for Applicant;

¶68

Mr S K Tambe, AGP for Respondents-State;

¶69

WITH

¶70

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2016

¶71

Umakant Vaijanathappa Hodge

¶72

Age 52 years, Occ. Business & Agril.
R/o Hanegaon,Tq. Degloor
Dist. Nanded.= APPLICANT
 (Orig. Claimant)

¶73

VERSUS

¶74

1. The State of Maharashtra Through District collector, Nanded

¶75

CRA 152/2016 & ORS.

¶76

(5)

¶77

2. The Dy. Collector Land Acquisition PT MIW-2, Nanded

¶78

3. The Executive Engineer Public Works Division, Nanded = RESPONDENTS (Orig. Respondents)

¶79

Mr Kurundkar Sunil V.,Adv. for Applicant;

¶80

Ms.P V Diggikar, AGP for Respondents-State;

¶81

WITH

¶82

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.107 OF 2017

¶83

Dr. Jayshree Madan Tapdiya
Age 47 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner
R/o Vinayak Hospital Near Bhatiya Complex
Maganpura, Nanded Tq & Dist. Nanded

¶84

= APPLICANT

¶85

 (Orig. Claimant)

¶86

VERSUS

¶87

1. The State of Maharashtra Through District collector, Nanded

¶88

2. The Dy. Collector Land Acquisition PT MIW-2, Nanded

¶89

3. The Executive Engineer Public Works Division, Nanded = RESPONDENTS (Orig. Respondents)

¶90

Mr Kurundkar Sunil V.,Adv. for Applicant;

¶91

Mr A B Chate, AGP for Respondents-State;

¶92

WITH

¶93

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.150 OF 2016

¶94

CRA 152/2016 & ORS.

¶95

(6)

¶96

Pradip Tukaram Rawte
Age 39 years, Occ. Nil
R/o Patbandhare Nagar,
Taroda (Bk), Tq. & Dist. Nanded.

¶97

= APPLICANT
 (Orig. Claimant)

¶98

VERSUS

¶99

1. The State of Maharashtra Through District collector, Nanded

¶100

2. The Dy. Collector Land Acquisition PT MIW-2, Nanded

¶101

3. The Executive Engineer Public Works Division, Nanded = RESPONDENTS (Orig. Respondents)

¶102

Mr Kurundkar Sunil V.,Adv. for Applicant;

¶103

Mr A B Chate, AGP for Respondents-State;

¶104

WITH

¶105

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.151 OF 2016

¶106

Ratan Laxmanrao Sonule

¶107

Age 53 years, Occ. Service
R/o C/o T.K. Rawate, Patbandhare Nagar
Taroda (Bk), Tq.& Dist. Nanded.

¶108

= APPLICANT

¶109

 (Orig. Claimant)

¶110

VERSUS

¶111

1. The State of Maharashtra Through District collector, Nanded

¶112

2. The Dy. Collector Land Acquisition PT MIW-2, Nanded

¶113

3. The Executive Engineer Public Works Division, Nanded = RESPONDENTS (Orig. Respondents)

¶114

CRA 152/2016 & ORS.

¶115

(7)

¶116

Mr Kurundkar Sunil V.,Adv. for Petitioner;

¶117

Mr A B Chate, AGP for Respondents-State.

¶118

CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : 14th June, 2019

¶119

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶120

1.In all these civil revision applications
since the issue involved is common, I heard common
arguments in all these revision applications and I
deem it appropriate to decide all these revision
applications by a common reasoning.

¶121

2.The only issue, which requires to be

¶122

considered in the present civil revision
applications is, - “whether the Reference
Applications under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1984 (herein after referred to as
the said Act), were filed by the present revision
applicants within the prescribed period of
limitation ?”

¶123

3.It is the case of the revision applicants

¶124

that they did prefer the Reference Applications
under Section 18 of the Act within the period of

¶125

CRA 152/2016 & ORS.

¶126

(8)

¶127

limitation. It is the further contention of the
applicants that after having come to know about
passing of the Award under Section 11 of the Act in
respect of their acquired lands, within the
prescribed period of limitation, all of them had
preferred the Reference Applications. It is,

¶128

therefore, the contention of the revision
applicants that the Reference Applications filed by
them were all within the period of limitation.

¶129

4.The order passed by Respondent No 2,

¶130

however, reflects that he has held the Reference
Applications to have been filed beyond the period
of limitation and he has, therefore, refused to
forward said Applications to the civil court for
their adjudication.

¶131

5.The learned counsel for the revisionists
has placed on record a chart, showing the details
as regard date of Award passed under Secltion 11 of
the Act; date of knowledge; date of service of
notice; date of filing the reference application
and date of knowledge according to Government. The
said chart is reproduced herein below, -

¶132

CRA 152/2016 & ORS.

¶133

¶134

CRA No.	Date of Award U/s 11	Date of knowledge	Date of service of 12/2 notice	Date of filing reference	Date of knowledge according to Government
152/ 2016	07.11.2013	10.02.2014	Not Served	05.03.2014	30.11.2013 as per Talathi Panchanama
153/ 2016	07.11.2013	07.11.2014	Not Served	11.12.2014	30.11.2013 as per Talathi Panchanama
154/ 2016	07.11.2013	04.03.2014	Not Served	26.03.2014	30.11.2013 as per Talathi Panchanama
155/ 2016	7.11.2013	27.01.2014	Not Served	23.12.2014	25.10.2013 as per Talathi Panchanama
156/ 2016	07.11.2013	07.04.2014	Not Served	24.06.2014	30.11.2013 as per Talathi Panchanama
157/ 2016	07.11.2013	02.07.2014	Not Served	05.08.2014	23.11.2013 as per Talathi Panchanama
158 /2016	07.11.2013	02.07.2014	Not Served	05.08.2014	20.11.2013 as per Panchanama
107/ 2017	07.11.2013	10.02.2014	Not Served	20.10.2014	NIL
150/ 2016	07.11.2013	10.02.2014	Not Served	05.03.2014	NIL
151/ 2016	07.11.2013	10.02.2014	Not Served	05.03.2014	NIL

¶135

CRA 152/2016 & ORS.

¶136

¶137

6.Today, when the revision applications were
taken up for hearing, a specific query was made by

¶138

this court with the learned AGP appearing for the
State to point out from the record or from the Say
filed by them in the respective matters, as to on
which date notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was
served upon the respective revision applicants and
what record is produced therefor.

¶139

7.Learned AGP fairly submitted that no such
record is placed on record. He, however, provided a
the dates, on which the respective revision
applicants were offered the amount of compensation,
as per the Award passed under Section 11 of the Act.
I deem it appropriate to reproduce those dates in the

¶140

following table, -

¶141

C.R.A. No.	Dates on which Compensation offered to the claimants
152/2016	8.12.2014
153/2016	Not available
154/2016	31.08.2014
155/2016	11.11.2014
156/2016	03.06.2014
57/2016	31.07.2014
158/2016	16.08.2014
107/2017	Not available
150/2016	08.12.2014
151/2016	8.12.2014

¶142

CRA 152/2016 & ORS.

¶143

¶144

8.In two matters, such dates are not

¶145

available. However, having regard to the dates in
the other matters, it can be reasonably inferred that
on the same dates, payment of compensation must have

¶146

been made in the said two matters also.

¶147

9.The aforesaid dates, which are provided by

¶148

the learned AGP apparently show that either the
Reference Applications were filed even before the
payment of compensation was actually received to the
revision applicants or within a very short period
after receiving the payment to the applicants. I

¶149

need not to state that the law is well-settled on the
issue that unless the contents of the Awards are made
available to the claimants/applicants, the period of
limitation for filing the Reference Applications
under Section 18 of the Act, will not commence.

¶150

10.The learned Counsel has relied upon the
following judgments, -

¶151

CRA 152/2016 & ORS.

¶152

¶153

Sr. No.	Name of Citations
1	2019(3)Mh.L.J 580, - VijayVs State of Maha
2	2000(4)Mh.L.J 302, - Amol Rambhau Vs State of Mah.
3	2004(2) LACC 473 - Faridabad Gas Power Project, Faridabad Vs Narender Kumar
4	2011(2)Mh.L.J.709 - State of Maharashtra Vs Kashiram
5	2014(2) ALL MR 370 - Sunil Dattatraya Nigade & Ors. Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.
6	2012(3) All MR 434 (S.C.) - Premji Nathu Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
7	2014(2) ALL MR 399 - Madhav Gundaji Shingade & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶154

11.It was the contention of the learned AGP
Shri Tambe that the material on record shows that a
sincere attempt was made by the Government
authorities to serve the notice under Section 12(2)
of the Act upon the revision applicants, however, the
notices could not be served since the claimants were
not found on the said address and panchanamas in that
regard were accordingly prepared, in almost all the
matters, on 30.11.2013 by Talathi of the concerned
village. It was the further contention of the
learned AGP that, that should be reckoned as the
date, on which knowledge was given to the applicants
of the Award passed under Section 11 of the Act and
considering said date, none of the Reference

¶155

CRA 152/2016 & ORS.

¶156

¶157

Applications can be said to have been filed within
the period of limitation. In the circumstances,
according to learned AGP, respondent No. 2 was right
in not referring the Reference Applications to the
civil court for their further adjudication.

¶158

12. I am, however, unable to agree with the

¶159

submissions made by the learned AGP. As I noted
herein above, what is required is service of copy of
the Award so that a person concerned may know the

¶160

contents of the Award passed in respect of
acquisition of his land. In none of the matters, any
evidence has been produced by the Government or by
the acquiring body, evidencing that the copy of the
Award was served upon the revision applicants on a
particular date and further that the Reference
Applications are filed beyond the period of
limitation, as provided in the Act after service of
the copy of the said Award.

¶161

13.In absence of any concrete evidence as about

¶162

the service of copy of the Award passed under Section
11 of the Act to the respective claimants, I deem it

¶163

CRA 152/2016 & ORS.

¶164

¶165

appropriate to consider the dates on which the amount

¶166

of compensation has been actually paid by the

¶167

respondents. As noted herein above, out of ten, in
two of such matters, dates are not provided either by

¶168

the claimants or by the State. In remaining eight
matters, such dates are provided, which I have
reproduced in the table below para 7. I have also
observed in para 8 that in absence of any information

¶169

as about the payment of compensation made to the
claimants in CRA No.153/2016 and CRA No.107/2017. It

¶170

has to be presumed that the compensation to the said
claimants was paid in somewhat similar period. The
material on record shows that in some of the matters
the Reference Applications under Section 18 were
preferred even prior to receiving the payment of
compensation by the respective claimants and in some
matters, the Reference Applications are filed within

¶171

the period of one month after receiving the payment.
In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding
that all the Reference Applications, which are the
subject mater of the present civil revisions
applications, must be held to have been filed within
the prescribed period of limitation.

¶172

CRA 152/2016 & ORS.

¶173

¶174

14.After having considered the facts, as

¶175

aforesaid, it appears to me that respondent No. 2 has
wrongly refused to forward the Reference Applications
to the civil court for their adjudication. The
impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside
and is accordingly set aside. The revision
applications stand allowed and it is directed that
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall forward the Reference
Applications to the concerned Civil Court for their
further adjudication in accordance with law.

¶176

15.The Civil Revision Applications stand

¶177

allowed, as aforesaid. Pending civil applications,
if any, stand disposed of.

¶178

(P.R.BORA)
 JUDGE

¶179

BDV

Govind Venkatrao Kottawar v. State of Maharashtra through District Collector, Nanded and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Venkatrao Kottawar v. State of Maharashtra through District Collector, Nanded 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

Nihal Jafarsab Saudagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra State Electricty Borad Vs Rajendra Vishnu Sanap

Vaishali Ramling Todkari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Biyani Syed Najeebuddin Vs Maulana Azad Educational Trust through Chairman and Others

Shreeyash Laxman Shankrod through Father Laxman Papanna Shankarod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Office Osmanabad and Anr. Vs Sonabai Shankar Jagtap