The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must pertain to the apportionment of compensation settled under section 11 of the Act, and the application must be made within a reasonable time.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the writ petition finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties. Though respondent Nos.3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 were served, they were not present in the Court.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 04/02/2021, passed by the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha, whereby an application filed by the respondent No.10 for rejection of reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), has been allowed. According to the petitioners, once such a reference was made to the aforesaid Civil Court by the respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Officer, it ought to have been decided on merits, after recording of evidence and that the said Court erred in throwing out the reference at the threshold.

4. In the present case, land located in Mouza Parsodi, Tahsil Seloo, District Wardha, was acquired by the respondent-State. The award determining compensation payable to the claimant was pronounced on 29/03/1988 and since the land in question, was registered in the name of contesting respondent No.10, i.e. the father of the petitioners, the amount of compensation of Rs.22,992/- was disbursed to the respondent No.10. There is no dispute about the fact that the said land was purchased by the respondent No.10 in the year 1964.

5. At the time when the aforesaid amount of compensation was disbursed as per the aforesaid award in the year 2010, and even thereafter, no dispute was raised by any person in respect of the entitlement of the said respondent for receiving compensation. Later, when the acquired land was to be utilized for the benefit of respondent No.3 i.e. the Jawaharlal Nehru Dry Port Project at Wardha, it appears that there was some grievance made and demands raised by landowners for further payment of amount. On 20/05/2016, the Deputy Secretary of the concerned Department of the State of Maharashtra, sent a communication to the respondent No.3 and its officials that in view of the demands made, and also in the backdrop of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, it was decided that further ex gratia amount/additional compensation shall be paid to claimants pertaining to the said acquisition at Rs.7,00,000/- per acre. Since the respondent No.10 was the claimant, who had been paid amount towards compensation as per the aforesaid award, steps were taken by the concerned Authorities to disburse the enhanced compensation of Rs.64,83,750/- into the account of respondent No.10.

6. It is at this stage, that on 05/08/2017, the petitioner No.1 applied before the Collector, Wardha under section 30 of the Act for referring dispute regarding apportionment of the said additional amount, to the Civil Court amongst “joint owners”. With reference to the said application, the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) sent a letter on 05/09/2017, to the respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Officer for appropriate action and in pursuance thereof, the reference was made to the aforesaid Civil Court under section 30 of the Act, bearing LAC No.46 of 2017.

7. In this proceeding initiated before the said Civil Court, the petitioner No.1 made an application for direction to stop disbursal of the amount to the respondent No.10. The Civil Court passed orders and issued directions to the concerned Bank as regards disbursal of the amount into the account of the respondent No.10.

8. In the said pending proceeding, the respondent No.10 filed an application questioning the maintainability of the reference, bearing Exhibit-55. It was contended that when the petitioner No.1 moved the application before the Collector under section 30 of the Act, the same was directly referred to the Civil Court, without even putting the respondent No.10 or other parties to notice. It was submitted that acquisition had taken place and the award had been pronounced as far back as in th