Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 785
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.
Narayan & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 786 of 2022
Decided On : 23-03-2023
G.V. Patil, Advocate, R.B. Bagul, Advocate, G.B. Rajale, Advocate
The main legal point established is that a reference must be decided on merits, and rejecting a reference solely on the ground of failure to adduce evidence does not amount to deciding the reference on merits.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Reference - Court directs reference to be decided on merits after finding that the reference was rejected solely on the ground that the petitioners failed to adduce evidence, which did not amount to deciding the reference on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugned the order rejecting the land acquisition reference due to the petitioners' failure to adduce evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reference was not decided on merits and was rejected solely on the ground of failure to adduce evidence, which did not amount to deciding the reference on merits. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the matter to be decided on merits by the reference court within six months.
Issues: The issue involved in the petition was the rejection of the land acquisition reference due to the petitioners' failure to adduce evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reference must be decided on merits and that rejecting the reference solely on the ground of failure to adduce evidence did not amount to deciding the reference on merits.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was relegated back to the reference court for decision on merits within six months.
JUDGMENT
Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. This petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in Land Acquisition Reference No. 154 of 2003, thereby rejecting the land acquisition reference as the petitioners failed to adduce evidence.
3. 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.
4. In view of such state-of-affairs, with a rider that the petitioners are not allowed to reap the benefit of their own wrong and making them to forgo their claim for the interest for the intervening period, the writ petition can be allowed.
5. 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. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
(I) The writ petition is allowed.
(II) The impugned order dated 30.11.2010 passed by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 154 of 2003 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(III) The matter is relegated back to the concerned reference Court for decision on merits, after giving an opportunity to the respective parties.
(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.
(V) The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim any interest for the period from the date of dismissal of the proceeding i.e. 30.11.2010 till today.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
No costs.
