Allowed

Shivram Honaji Gudame Since Deceased through Lrs Venkat Shivram Gudame v. the State of Maharashtra through Collector and Another

Bombay HC16 Feb 2023WP/1683/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment sets aside an impugned order of the Reference Court that dismissed a land acquisition reference for non-appearance. The court held that such references must be decided on merits and restored the matter for a fresh hearing with evidence led by both parties.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 20th August 2008 was quashed and set aside, and the matter restored for a fresh hearing where parties could lead evidence.

Shivram Honaji Gudame Since Deceased through Lrs Venkat… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 wp 1683.23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1683 OF 2023

¶4

Shivram Honaji Gudame Since deceased through his L.Rs. Venkat Shivram Gudame .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Shrikant B. Madde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. G. L. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶8

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 16TH FEBRUARY, 2023.

¶9

FINAL ORDER :

¶10

. By this petition, the challenge is to the award dated 20^th August, 2008, whereby reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be dismissed by the Reference Court.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that reference filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be dismissed for non prosecution. He would further urge that the reference Court has not decided the claim on merits and dismissed the reference on the ground that the claimant failed to lead evidence. Learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner is agreeable to waive the interest for the delayed period.

¶12

2 wp 1683.23

¶13

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 vehemently opposes the petition and would submit that, as the petitioner failed to lead evidence, the Reference Court has rightly decided the matter on the basis of material on record. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner have placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 02.02.2023 in Writ Petition No. 13332 of 2022 in the case of Chandabai W/o Gangaram Pauyed Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another with other connected writ petitions and judgment dated 17.08.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 2649 of 2021 in the case of Kundlik S/o Limbraj Gore Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others .

¶15

Heard learned counsel for respective parties.

¶16

A detailed order has been passed by this Court on 02^nd February, 2023 in Writ Petition No. 13332 of 2021 with other connected writ petitions. This Court has held that the order of Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act has to comply with form of the award prescribed by Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “L. A. Act”). Admittedly the reference was filed U/Sec. 18 of the L. A. Act and the award dated 20^th August, 2008 shows that the Reference has been dismissed for failure on part of petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his claim. By no stretch of imagination the award can be said to be a

¶17

3 wp 1683.23

¶18

decision on merits. As held by this Court in the case of Kundlik S/o Limbraj Gore Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others and in the case of Chandabai W/o Gangaram Pauyed Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another reference has to be decided on merits.

¶19

The issue being covered by both the decisions cited above, the impugned award dated 20^th August, 2008 is required to be quashed and set aside. Considering that the reference was of year 1996 and came to be dismissed in the year 2008, in my opinion, the petitioner/claimant will not be entitled to any interest from the date of judgment dismissing the reference i. e. 20.08.2008 till the final disposal of the reference.

¶20

Hence the following order.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

A. Award dated 20^th August, 2008 passed in L.A.R. No. 871 of 2001 (Old L.A.R. No. 860 of 1996) is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶23

B. L. A. R. No. 871 of 2001 (Old L.A.R. No. 860 of 1996) is hereby restored to its original position.

¶24

C. The petitioner-claimant shall appear before the Reference Court on 13.03.2023.

¶25

4 wp 1683.23

¶26

D. The Reference Court shall permit the petitioner - claimant to lead oral and documentary evidence in support of their contention so also permit the respondent-State or the acquiring body, as the case may be, to lead oral and documentary evidence in support of their rival contentions.

¶27

E. The concerned Reference Court shall dispose of the Land Acquisition Reference as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from 13^th March, 2023.

¶28

G. The petitioner - claimant shall not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, if awarded from the date of dismissal of LAR till the final disposal of the LAR by the Reference Court.

¶29

H. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶31

bsb/Feb. 23

Shivram Honaji Gudame Since Deceased through Lrs Venkat Shivram Gudame v. the State of Maharashtra through Collector and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivram Honaji Gudame Since Deceased through Lrs Venkat Shivram Gudame v. the State of Maharashtra through 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Hamid Shaikh Biban and Others Vs Shaikh Meer Shaikh Nasib Deceased through Lrs Bibibegam Shiakh Mir and Others

Yogesh Ambadasrao Deshmukh Vs Chitra Yogesh Deshmukh

Prakash Govindrao Amrutwar Vs Laxman Govind Amrutwar through Gpa Holder Govind Vasantrao Amrutwar and Others

Shantabai Marotrao Nalge and Others Vs Bhagyashree Satyanarayan Nalge and Others

Bharat Tukaram Kavade and Others Vs the Chief Officer and Another

Mangesh Dattatraya Joshi and Others Vs the Chief Officer and Another