1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL No. 2357 OF 2010 Narayan Dhondiba Aghav .. APPELLANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri T.G. Gaikwad, Advocate for appellant Smt. R.K. Ladda, A.G.P. for the respondent/State CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24th November, 2010. PER COURT : The present appellant is the original claimant, who had filed Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, before the Reference Court. The said Reference came to be dismissed. The Reference Court held that the Reference is filed within the period of limitation but appellant did not produce any evidence, the Reference came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said Award the appellant has filed the present Appeal. 2. Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the 2 appellant submits that no proper opportunity was given to the claimant to adduce the evidence. The matter was entrusted to the learned Advocate, he was residing at Beed and the matter was not attended which was pending before the Additional District Judge, Ambajogai. As the present appellant was not aware of the dates, the matter could not be attended. Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel submits that the claimant is an old illiterate person residing in a rural village who is not conversant with the legal procedure. According to him, opportunity deserves to be given to adduce the evidence. 3. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, learned A.G.P. for the appellant /State submits that ample opportunity was given to the appellant but the appellant did not avail the opportunity. In absence of any evidence the Reference Court has rightly rejected the Reference. According to learned A.G.P. the appellant cannot take advantage of his own wrong. 4. On perusal of the Judgment delivered by the Reference Court, it is manifest that no 3 evidence was led by the appellant to substantiate the market value. The age of the appellant shows that he is an old person. The appellant is rustic person residing in a rural village. After entrusting the matter to an Advocate the appellant was under bonafide belief that the Advocate would attend and communicate what steps are to be taken. But Advocate also never attended the matter. It is settled law that for fault of the Advocate, the litigant should not suffer. Taking into account, the above conspectus of the matter, it would be appropriate to accord one more opportunity to the appellant to adduce his evidence. It is not disputed that the land of the appellant has been acquired. Source of his livelihood has been taken away. In such circumstances, I allow the appeal and relegate the parties to the Reference Court. 5. The impugned Judgment and Award is set aside. The District Court, Ambajogai, shall re- hear Land Acquisition Reference No. 35 of 1989. The parties shall appear on 20th December, 2010. The Reference Court shall decide the Reference, 4 after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence within six months thereafter. The First Appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM* 2357.10FA/241110