Subhabai Venunath Mahamuni Deceased through Lrs Gunderao Venunath Mahamuni and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:95

¶2

723.22WP

¶3

1

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

63. WRIT PETITION NO.723 of 2022

¶6

Subhabai w/o.Venunath Mahamuni,

¶7

Deceased through her L.Rs.

¶8

1] Gunderao s/o. Venunath Mahamuni

¶9

2] Kumar s/o. Venunath Mahamuni

¶10

3] Kantabai w/o. Shrihari Potdar

¶11

4] Smt.Ujwala Balaji Mahamuni .. PETITIONERS

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

1] The State of Maharashtra

¶14

2] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,

¶15

Manjara Project, Osmanabad

¶16

3] The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Osmanabad. .. RESPONDENTS

¶17

Mr.P.V.Ambade, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms.P.R.Bharaswadkar, AGP for the respondent-State

¶18

CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

¶19

DATE :02.01.2024

¶20

P.C. :

¶21

1] Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

2] By order dated 08.08.2012 in LAR No.1153 of

¶23

2009, the Reference Court at para no.17 has observed as

¶24

under :

¶25

2

¶26

723.22WP

¶27

“17. In order to adjudicate the real controversy in question the Court has to scrutinize the award while adjudicating upon the grievance put forth by the claimant. The claimant though challenge the award, but failed to produce on record copy of Award and sale instances as well as E statement to compare the market value. The claimant except by filing reference petition and allegation therein, he failed to produce on record any iota of evidence to weigh his grievance and in absence of the same, I hold that claimant has totally failed to prove his claim that the S.L.A.Ο. who has awarded the compensation was unjust, unfair and inadequate, as the claimant failed to substantiate his claim and further hold that the market value, which was awarded by the S.L.A.O. was proper and just at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, claimant is not entitled to claim any enhanced compensation as prayed by him, accordingly, I answered issue Nos. 1,4 and 5 in the negative and proceed to pass the following order.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Reference is hereby dismissed.

¶30

There will no order as to costs.

¶31

Award be prepared accordingly. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)”

¶32

3]The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

¶33

that the original claimant had expired on 08.04.2010 and

¶34

her legal heirs were not aware about pendency of the
reference petition before the Reference Court, as such, no
evidence was led before the Reference Court to adjudicate
the reference. The legal heirs of the claimant has filed

¶35

3

¶36

723.22WP

¶37

present Writ Petition and along with the Writ Petition,
death certificate of claimant is also annexed. The learned
counsel further submits that since the original claimant had
expired, the petitioners being not aware of the reference
proceedings and thus could not conduct the proceedings
before the Reference Court. The learned counsel for the
petitioners further submits that the petitioners would not
claim any interest or statutory benefits for the delayed
period from the date of judgment of the Reference Court till
the date of filing of the present Writ Petition i.e. from
08.08.2012 to December, 2021. The learned counsel for the
petitioners further submits that considering the above facts,
the order dated 08.08.2012 passed by the Civil Judge
[S.D.], Omerga in LAR No.1153 of 2009 [Old
No.115/2007] may be quashed and set aside and the matter
may be remanded back for fresh adjudication.

¶38

4]Since the original claimant had expired during
the pendency of proceedings before the Reference Court
before leading evidence, the order dated 08.08.2012 passed

¶39

4

¶40

723.22WP

¶41

by the Civil Judge [S.D.], Omerga in LAR No.1153 of 2009
[Old No.115/2007] is quashed and set aside subject to the
condition that the petitioners would not claim interest or
statutory benefits for the period of 08.08.2012 to December,
2021. The matter is remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The present petitioners are permitted to lead the evidence
before the Reference Court. After remand, the Reference
Court to decide the reference petition within a period of 6
[six] months from the date of production of certified copy
of order of this Court.

¶42

5]The parties to appear before the Reference
Court within two weeks.

¶43

6]Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶44

 [ARUN R. PEDNEKER]
 JUDGE

¶45

DDC

Subhabai Venunath Mahamuni Deceased through Lrs Gunderao Venunath Mahamuni and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhabai Venunath Mahamuni Deceased through Lrs Gunderao Venunath Mahamuni and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Executive Engineer Vs Mahbub Shah Abdul Shah Deceased Thr Lrs

Lukas Bhaskar Sonawane Vs State of Maharashtra through the Collector of Stamps and Others

Lukas Bhaskar Sonawane Vs State of Maharashtra through the Collector of Stamps and Others

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Shantabai Shantaram Agre and Ors.

Rahul Adinath Gore Vs Municipal Commissioner Aurangabad Municipal Corporation

Dinesh Rameshlal Kariya Vs Sachin Bhanudas Misal