Allowed

Satappa Shivram Ghodake v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Collector and Others

Bombay HC5 Jul 2023WP/172/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act must be decided on merits and not by default. Quashing the order rejecting the reference due to lack of evidence, the Court restored the matter to the Reference Court for a fresh charge of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Civil Judge quashed and set aside; matter restored to Reference Court for decision on merits within six months.

Satappa Shivram Ghodake Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

949-WP-172-22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.172 OF 2022

¶5

Satappa Shivram Ghodake .... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through, Collector Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad.

¶8

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Krishna Khore, Osmanabad

¶9

Dist. Osmanabad

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Strengthening Divisional, Krishna Khore, V.AD. Corp. Omerga,

¶11

Dist. Osmanabad .... Respondents

¶12

Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. P.N. Kutti, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶13

[ CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] DATE : 05^th JULY, 2023

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶15

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

¶16

This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 02/04/2012, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 877 of 2005 (Old No.407 of 2001), thereby rejecting the land acquisition reference, as the petitioners failed to adduce evidence.

1 of 4

949-WP-172-22

Indisputably the issue involved in this petition is covered by the judgment of this Court (Coram: V.K. Jadhav, J.) in Writ Petition No. 12795 of 2019 and connected writ petitions, wherein this Court has held that the reference has to be decided on merits. Since, in those matters, references were rejected due to failure on the part of the petitioners therein to adduce evidence, this Court has held that the reference Court did not decide the references on merits and therefore set aside the orders passed by the reference Court and restored the references and directed to decide the references on merits.

¶21

In Writ Petition No. 1448 of 2021 (Bharat Laxmidas Thakkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Others), learned Single Judge of this Court has held:

¶22

“4. It is trite that it is a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and is not an adversarial litigation. Once a reference is made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, it is imperative for the reference court to decide it on merits either way. It is apparent that by the impugned order, the reference court has simply dismissed it in default instead of deciding it on merits.

¶23

In view of such state-of-affairs, with a rider that the petitioner is not allowed to reap the benefit of his own wrong and making him to forgo his claim for the interest for the intervening period, the writ petition can be allowed.”

2 of 4

949-WP-172-22

Admittedly, in the present case also the References is not decided on merits and the same is rejected solely on the ground that the petitioners failed to adduce evidence. The present case is therefore, squarely covered by the abovereferred decision

¶28

In view of aforesaid observations, following order:-

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(I) The writ petition is allowed.

¶31

(II) The impugned order dated 02/04/2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, District Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.877 of 2005 (Old No.407 of 2001) is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶32

(III) The matter is relegated back to the concerned Reference Court for decision on merits, after giving an opportunity to the respective parties.

¶33

(IV) The Reference Court shall expedite the hearing of the matter and decide the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Parties to co-operate.

3 of 4

949-WP-172-22

(V) The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any interest for the period from the date of dismissal of the proceeding i.e. 02/04/2012 till today.

¶38

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No

¶39

costs.

¶40

[ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE

¶41

S.P. Rane

¶42

4 of 4

Satappa Shivram Ghodake v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Collector and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satappa Shivram Ghodake v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Collector 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

Shrishail Shivappa Lade Vs Nagraj Siddram Lade and Others

Dagadu Laxman Shinde Vs Tulshiram Namdeo Dahite Deceased through Lrs Tukaram Tulsiram Dahite and Others

General Secretary Aurangabad Mazdoor Union Citu Aurangabad Vs Manager M/S Seth Nandlal Dhoot Hospital Aurangabad

Ashish Pawan Khandelwal Vs Priyanka Ashish Khandelwal and Another

Priyanka Ashish Khandelwal and Another Vs Ashish Pavan Khandelwal

Parbhani District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited through Its Chief Executive Officer Vs Dattarao Kondibarao Gavhane Died through Lrs Sulochanabai Kondiba Gavhane