IMPORTANT POINT
The decision of the Reference Court under Section 34(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 is appealable, and an unsigned award does not invalidate the acquisition process.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

A.S.CHANDURKAR,J. - In Writ Petition Nos. 6595 & 6360 of 2013 & 6127 of 2014 a common challenge is raised to the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagpur dtd. 26/3/1992 granting compensation towards acquisition of various lands from village Turakmari, Taluka Hingna, District Nagpur. According to the petitioners, since the said award dtd. 26/3/1992 was not signed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, it has no force in the law and is thus void. In the alternate, enhancement in the amount of compensation determined in the said award is sought by urging that determination of the amount of compensation by the Reference Court makes such adjudication final in view of sec. 34(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short, the Act of 1961) and no appeal therefrom is maintainable. The petitioners thus seek to invoke Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for enhancement in the amount of compensation from what has been granted by the Reference Court. First Appeal No. 751 of 1996 has been preferred by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (for short, the MIDC) challenging the judgment and decree passed in L.A.C. No. 11 of 1993 dtd. 25/9/1996. When the said appeal was being heard by learned Single Judge, the claimant-respondent No. 3 raised an objection to the maintainability of the appeal under sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) by urging that the claim before the Reference Court was valued at Rs.50.00 Lakhs and as per pecuniary jurisdiction conferred on the District Court, the appeal filed under sec. 96 of the Code would lie before the District Court and not this Court. Since the admission of the aforesaid writ petitions was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, it was directed by the order dtd. 13/10/2016 that the First Appeal be heard alongwith these writ petitions. It is in this manner that the present proceedings have been heard and are being decided together.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No. 6595 of 2013 are being referred to. Field bearing Survey No. 67 admeasuring 3 Hectares 24 Ares situated at Mouza Turakmari was the subject matter of acquisition under the provisions of the Act 1961. Notification under sec. 31(1) of the Act of 1961 was published on 17/10/1988 and notice under sec. 32(2) of the Act of 1961 came to be issued on 16/12/1988. The petitionerland owner raised his objection to the said noti ce on 16/1/1989. Thereafter on 22/2/1989, Notification under sec. 32(1) of the Act of 1961 came to be issued. Since the objections raised by various land owners were turned down, that adjudication was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 559 of 1991 alongwith other writ petitions. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 1st, 3rd and 4/10/1991 dismissed all the writ petitions paving the way of passing of the final award. On 26/3/1992 the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed his award. The land owner thereafter filed reference proceedings under sec. 34 of the Act of 1961 seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation. The parties led evidence before the Reference Court and ultimately on 31/12/2012 the reference proceedings were decided by directing enhancement in the amount of compensation from what was determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The record indicates that the MIDC being aggrieved by the said judgment has preferred First Appeal No. 822 of 2014 (Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Nagpur Vs. Ramesh Bapuraoji Nikhade and others), which is stated to be pending.

3. According to the land owner on 2/3/2010 he got information of the fact that the award dtd. 26/3/1992 had not been signed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. This fact was sought to be raised before the Reference Court. According to the land owner, he expected that the said aspect would be taken into consideration and the proceedings would be again remanded to the S