1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10014 OF 2010 Nagnath s/o Gyana Boyne age 60 years, occ. agril. r/o Dadgi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Latur. 2 Sub Divisional Officer Land Acquisition Officer, Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 3 The Tahsildar Nilanga Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.S. Manale, advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, AGP for the State. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 21 st OCTOBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, 2 the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Grievance made by the petitioner is in respect of rejection of his request to tender additional evidence in the Land Acquisition Reference presented before the Civil Court. 4 It is contended that his land has been acquired for the public purpose and award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimant was not satisfied with the amount awarded and as such tendered request to refer the matter for determination of proper value of the acquired land. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to the Civil Court and the same is registered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 8/2000. It is stated by the petitioner that he lead evidence partially and also presented evidence close pursis at exh. 39. It is further contended by the petitioner that it later on transpired that some further evidence is necessary to be lead which would substantiate his claim as regards the market value of the property. As such, he tendered application to the court seeking permission to lead further evidence. However, as the petitioner had earlier tendered evidence close pursis at exh. 39, the reference court refused to accord permission and turned down his request in view of order passed below exh. 55. 3 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was an inadvertent error on the part of the claimant / petitioner herein to present the evidence close pursis. Infact, in order to substantiate his claim some sale instances pertaining to the transactions entered into between the willing purchasers and willing sellers in respect of the adjoining properties are required to be placed on record. It is contended that in order to meet the ends of justice it would be necessary to accord him permission to place on record additional evidence. It is contended that if such permission is refused the poor agriculturist would be put to loss as he would not be able to substantiate his claim. 6 Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I deem it appropriate, in order to meet the ends of justice, to accord permission to the petitioner to place on record additional evidence. Petitioner contends that he would keep his witnesses present and would tender copies of the sale instances on record on 15 th November, 2010. Reference Court shall proceed to record the evidence that would be tendered by the claimant on 15 th November, 2010 or on next day. Order passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 8/2000 below exh. 55 refusing to accord 4 permission to the petitioner / original claimant to lead further evidence is quashed and set aside. Application tendered by the claimant shall be deemed to have been allowed. In the event of failure of the claimant to lead evidence on the given date, i.e. on 15 th November, 2010, order passed in the instant petition shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp10014.10.odt