IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that presumptive death under Section 110 of the BSA Act allows for summary inquiries in succession matters, negating the need for a formal decree of presumed death.

JUDGMENT :

1. Admit. Heard finally with consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.

2. This first appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and award in L.A.R. No.236 of 2004 dated 26.10.2015 delivered by Special Court Designated Under MIHAN, (Ad-hoc District Judge-3), Nagpur.

3. The appellant prayed for enhancement of compensation of her acquired land for Mihan Project, Nagpur. The land reference was partly allowed. The respondents were directed to pay enhanced amount of compensation @ Rs.4,25,000/- per hector for Survey No.74 and 93 admeasuring area 2.28 H.R. and 1.65 H.R. respectively situated at village Telhara, Tah. and Dist. Nagpur. This appeal is preferred for enhancement of compensation amount by the legal representatives of late Savitribai the original claimant.

4. The learned advocate for the appellants submitted and pointed out that in the similar land acquisition proceedings bearing L.A.R. No.232 of 2004 dated 23.03.2016, L.A.R. No.242 of 2004 dated 02.05.2016 and in L.A.R. No.243 of 2004 dated 02.05.2016 are decided wherein compensation @ Rs.10,00,000/- per hector was awarded by the same Special Court. But the appellants have not got amount of compensation at higher rate. It is against the principle of parity and injustice is caused to the appellants. Therefore, this appeal is preferred by the appellants.

5. The learned advocate for the appellants further submitted that, the original applicant/claimant did not adduce necessary evidence and therefore, an amount of compensation was not properly determined by the Special Court. She, therefore, prays for remanding the reference to the Special Court Mihan, Nagpur for adducing additional evidence and its decision on merit.

6. Respondent No.1 is absent though served.

7. The learned advocates for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have strongly objected the prayer of remand of reference and submitted that, reasonable amount of compensation is awarded by the Special Court to the claimant and there is no need to remand the said reference. It is lastly prayed to dismiss this appeal.

8. The following point emerged for consideration :

(1) Is the case made out by the appellants to remand the Reference to the trial Court for recording additional evidence and for its decision on merit ?”

9. Perused the impugned judgment and judgments in L.A.R. No.232/2004, L.A.R. No.242 of 2004 and L.A.R. No.243 of 2004.

10. The admitted facts are that, the lands in L.A.R. No.242 of 2004 and L.A.R. No.243 of 2004 etc. were acquired by one and same notification which are situated in one and same village Telhara. The awards drawn up are also one and same. The L.A.R. No.236 of 2004 of appellants was decided earlier and other references were decided later on. More amount of compensation than this appellants was awarded to the claimants in the above noted cases. It is against the principles of parity and it certainly causes injustice to the appellants. However, Special Court did not err while deciding reference of this appellants. There was no such necessary evidence as adduced by the claimants in the other cases.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, the reference deserves to be remanded to the Special Court for adducing and recording additional evidence and decision on it.

11. The Special Court has to decide the said reference on the basis of parity, if the similar type of evidence is adduced by the claimants, on its own merit. Therefore, the remand of the said reference to the Special Court is justifiable in the interest of justice.

12. The learned Advocate for the appellants pointed out an order of this Court directing appellants to produce the heirship or succession certificate of the legal representatives of late Savitribai, who was original claimant. She submitted that it is not necessity to submit the succession or heirship certificate, as nobody has denied legal character of late Savitribai. The legal relationship as well as the status of these appellants as legal representative of late Savitribai i