SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Shrimant Narayan Rathod - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 14666 of 2021
Decided On : 03-02-2023

Advocates:
Counsel for Appearing Parties
Vivekanand V. Ingale, Advocate, G.L. Deshpande, Advocate

The reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, and the reference court must determine the market value afresh based on the material produced before it.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act - Reference Proceedings - Section 18, Section 53, Section 54 - The court examined the dismissal of the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and emphasized that the reference proceedings cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution. The court also highlighted the guidelines for determining the market value of the acquired land and emphasized that the reference court must treat the reference as an original proceeding and determine the market value afresh based on the material produced before it. The court quashed the previous award, restored the land acquisition reference, and directed the claimant to lead oral and documentary evidence in support of their contention, setting a timeline for the disposal of the reference.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the dismissal of the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, contending that the reference court had not decided the claim on merits and had dismissed the reference on the ground of non-prosecution.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the reference proceedings cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution and emphasized the need for the reference court to determine the market value afresh based on the material produced before it. The court also rejected the objection of delay raised by the respondent and restored the land acquisition reference, allowing the claimant to lead evidence in support of their claim for enhanced compensation.

Issues: The issues for determination included the adequacy of the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the determination of a reasonable price/compensation for the acquired land, and the appropriate order to be made.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the reference proceedings cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution and highlighted the guidelines for determining the market value of the acquired land. It also rejected the objection of delay and restored the land acquisition reference, allowing the claimant to lead evidence in support of their claim for enhanced compensation.

Final Decision: The court quashed the previous award, restored the land acquisition reference, and directed the claimant to lead oral and documentary evidence in support of their contention, setting a timeline for the disposal of the reference.

JUDGMENT

Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mrs. G.L. Deshpande, learned AGP waives service on behalf of the respondent - State. At the joint request of learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally at the admission stage.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Award dated 27. 03.2012 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Omerga in L.A.R. No.761 of 2009 dismissing the reference.

3. Heard Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. G.L. Deshpande, AGP for the respondent - State.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reference 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 has not bothered to pursue the matter for establishing his claim and has thus failed to adduce any evidence for the purpose of redetermination of the market value of the acquired property. As such, he would contend that the Award passed by the Reference Court is liable to be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded for consideration afresh. On the ground of delay in filing the present petition which is filed in the year 2021 whereas the Award has been passed in the year 2012, he would submit that the proceeding was filed by the petitioner at Osmanabad and after the establishment of Lower Court at Omerga, it was transferred to that Court, which was not intimated to the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner got knowledge from some other claimants about the dismissal of the proceedings and thereafter immediately he has approached this Hon'ble Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of this court in the case of Dhangar Pandurang Gosavi vs. The State of Maharashtra and others with connected writ petitions decided on 10.02.2021.

5. Per contra, learned AGP raised objection as to maintainability on the ground that the decision of the reference Court is on merits and therefore the appeal would lie under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and the present Petition has been filed to avoid payment of Court fees. It was urged that there is considerable delay in filing the present Petition and no sufficient explanation has been tendered. The learned AGP would contend that in reference proceedings, the burden was upon the claimant to adduce evidence showing that the compensation awarded in respect of the acquired property was inadequate and insufficient and in absence of any such evidence, the material on record has been considered and the reference has been decided on merits and award is directed to be drawn up accordingly. The attention of this Court is invited to the provisions of Order-XVII, Rule-2 and 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and it is submitted that the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short 'Code'), the reference Court has proceeded to dispose of the suit in accordance with the provisions of Order-IX of the Code.

6. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is necessary to refer to Section 18 of the Act which contemplates reference to Court by a person who has not accepted the Award and reads thus:

    '18. Reference to Court.- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

    (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:

    Provided that every such application shall be made,-

    (a) if the perso

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top