Allowed

Rahul Raosaheb Kolte and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through District Collector and Others

Bombay HC19 Jul 2023WP/8554/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting a land acquisition reference due to lack of evidence. The High Court held that under precedents, such references must be decided on merits. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter restored to the reference court for a merits-based decision within one year, though interest for the interim period was denied.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned order, restored reference for decision on merits within one year; petitioner denied interest for interim period.

Rahul Raosaheb Kolte and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 912-WP-8554-23.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.8554 OF 2023

¶4

Rahul Raosaheb Kolte, Age- 25 years, Occupation – Agricultural

¶5

Aakash Raosaheb Kolte, Age- 33 years, Occupation – Agricultural Both R/o. Ridhora Tq. Bhokardhan, Dist. Jalna ...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through District Collector, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna

¶8

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, (Gaothan) Jalna.

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, (Local Sector) Jalna. ...Respondents

¶10

... Advocate for Petitioners : Ms. Saie Joshi, Advocate i/b J. P. Legal Associates AGP for Respondents – State : Mr. S.R. Yadav Lonikar

¶11

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

¶12

DATE : 19^th JULY, 2023

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶14

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

¶15

This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

¶16

SVH

¶17

2 912-WP-8554-23.odt

¶18

of India, impugns the order dated 03/09/2022, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 24/2015, thereby rejecting the land acquisition reference as the petitioner failed to adduce evidence.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

“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

¶22

SVH

¶23

3 912-WP-8554-23.odt

¶24

dismissed it in default instead of deciding it on merits.

¶25

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.”

¶26

Admittedly, in the present case also the reference 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 above-referred decision.

¶27

In view of aforesaid, following order is passed:-

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(I) The writ petition is allowed.

¶30

(II) The impugned order dated 03/09/2022, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 24/2015, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

SVH

¶34

4 912-WP-8554-23.odt

¶35

(V) The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any interest for the period from the date of dismissal of the proceeding i.e. 03/09/2022 till today.

¶36

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

¶37

(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

¶38

SVH

Rahul Raosaheb Kolte and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through District Collector and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Raosaheb Kolte and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through District 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

Ramesh Popat Gawali Since Deceased Hence Thr Lrs Smt. Sushilabai Ramesh Gawali and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Collector Dhule Alias the Competent Authority and Others

Waman Fakira Burud Vs Ramesh Maruti Dhapse and Others

Maroti Baburao Biradar and Another Vs Kalavati Ramrao Kaname and Others

Shruti Satish Kale and Others through Guardian Grandmother Moharbai Suresh Galphade Vs Chairman District Legal Services Authroity Beed and Honble Principal District Judge and Others

Pravin Popat Darade and Others Vs Pralhad Kalyan Vanve

Sunil Bapurao Kolte and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through District Collector and Others