cra170.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 170 OF 2010 AND CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NOs.171 to 176/2010. Baburao Mahipat Patil Deceased through L.Rs. 1. Vimalbai Baburao Patil, age 60 years, occu. agril., 2. Kishor s/o Baburao Patil, age 33 yrs., occu. agril., 3. Satish s/o Baburao Patil, age major, occi. agril., All r/o Raipur, tq. & Dist.Jalgaon. ...APPLICANTS. ( Ori. Claimants) VERSUS 1 The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (I), U.T.P.H. Jalgaon. 2 The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondents ... AND CIVIL REVISION APPLCIATION NO.171 OF 2010. Govinda Waman Bhil, age major, Ocu. agril., R/o Raipur, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ...APPLICANT. ( Ori. Claimant) cra170.10 2 VERSUS 1 The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (I), U.T.P.H. Jalgaon. 2 The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondents ... AND CIVIL REVISION APPLCIATION NO.172 OF 2010. Anil s/o Dongarsing Pardeshi, age 35 years, Ocu. agril., R/o Raipur, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ...APPLICANT. ( Ori. Claimant) VERSUS 1 The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (I), U.T.P.H. Jalgaon. 2 The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondents ... AND CIVIL REVISION APPLCIATION NO.173 OF 2010. Madhukar s/o Ramdas Patil, age 45 years, Ocu. agril., R/o Raipur, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ...APPLICANT. ( Ori. Claimant) cra170.10 3 VERSUS 1 The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (I), U.T.P.H. Jalgaon. 2 The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondents ... AND CIVIL REVISION APPLCIATION NO.174 OF 2010. Deosing Hari Pardeshi, age 45 years, Ocu. agril., ...APPLICANT. ( Ori. Claimant) VERSUS 1 The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (I), U.T.P.H. Jalgaon. 2 The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondents ... AND CIVIL REVISION APPLCIATION NO.175 OF 2010. Ashok s/o Dhanaji Patil, age 40 years, Ocu. agril., R/o Raipur, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ...APPLICANT. ( Ori. Claimant) VERSUS cra170.10 4 1 The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (I), U.T.P.H. Jalgaon. 2 The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondents ... AND CIVIL REVISION APPLCIATION NO.176 OF 2010. Ratan Kalu Pardeshi deceased through Legal heirs Vithal Ratan Pardeshi, age 32 years, Ocu. agril., R/o Raipur, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ...APPLICANT. ( Ori. Claimant) VERSUS 1 The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (I), U.T.P.H. Jalgaon. 2 The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project, Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondents ... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE: 22nd July, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. cra170.10 5 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 3 These Revision applications are filed being aggrieved by the judgments and orders dated 24th June, 2010, passed by learned IV Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in L.A.R. Nos.534/2000, 359/2000, 540/2000, 516/2000, 550/2000, 549/2000 and 553/2000, respectively, thereby dismissing Land Acquisition References filed by the applicants / petitioners. 4 It is the case of the petitioners that they are owner of the house properties described in the references, situated at village Raipur, Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon, which came to be acquired by the respondent authorities for the purpose of construction of Hatnur - Waghur Medium Project at Raipur. The possession of the said houses has been taken before initiating and /or completing the Land Acquisition proceedings. 5 It is further case of the petitioner that notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are not issued strictly in accordance to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The S.L.A.O. awarded the compensation for the acquired houses at the rate of ` 63/- per sq. meter as against the claim of `.2882/- per sq. cra170.10 6 meter. The petitioners have withdrawn amount awarded under protest. 6 The petitioners being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, offered by the Land Acquisition Officer, tendered application seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court for the purpose of determination of proper market value of the acquired house property. The petitioners claimed compensation at the rate of `2882/- per sq. meter. The claim of the petitioners came to be registered as L.A.R. Nos.534/2000, 359/2000, 540/2000, 516/2000, 550/2000, 549/2000 and 553/2000 before the IV Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon. 7 The learned C.J.S.D., Jalgaon took up the Reference for hearing. The learned Judge, at the time of hearing, was of the view that the petitioners and their advocates were not present before the Court, so also it is observed that steps for adjudication of the references were not taken, evidence had not been adduced and the acquiring body was not impleaded as party respondent. Therefore, the learned IV Joint C.J.S.D., Jalgaon dismissed the aforesaid references. Hence, these Revisions. 8 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by learned Judge is per se illegal as it has cra170.10 7 been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and therefore, the same is against the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the Court below should not have dismissed the references, merely on technicalities and the Land Acquisition References, ought to have been decided on merits. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners invited my attention to the grounds in the Civil Revision Applications and submitted that the impugned Judgments and Orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relied upon a reported Judgment of this Court in case of Kawadu Madhav Bansod Vs. State of Maharashtra & another, reported in 2004(4) Bom.C.R. 495. Relying on the said Judgment the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, would urge that the facts in the instant case and the facts of the case, which is cited supra are similar. In the said case, this Court has taken a view that the reference cannot be rejected on the ground of technicalities i.e. petitioner and his advocate were not present before the Court, the steps for adjudication of the reference were not taken, evidence has not been adduced and the acquiring body is not impleaded as party respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, invited my attention to para No. 7 of the said judgment and submitted that in the interest of justice, the impugned Judgments and Orders deserve to be set aside. cra170.10 8 9. On the other hand, learned A.G.P. has tried to justify the impugned judgments and orders on the ground that the same cannot be faulted with any error and has prayed for dismissal of the Revisions. 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. In my view, the impugned Judgments and Orders deserve to be interfered with and required to be quashed and set aside. At the outset, it has to be clarified that the present Civil Revision Application is maintainable, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Kawadu Madhav Bansod (supra), as the facts involved in the instant case are similar to the facts of that case. 11 Coming to the first contention of the Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that Land Acquisition Reference sshould not have been rejected, on the ground of not filing documentary evidence is concerned, this Court in case of Kawadu Madhav Bansod (supra), has taken a view that the said order rejecting the reference on the ground of failure of the revision petitioner to adduce evidence cannot be taken to be adjudicated, and therefore, same cannot be treated to be an Award. Therefore, the ground for cra170.10 9 dismissal i.e. no documentary evidence is filed by the revision petitioners, cannot be a ground to reject the references. This Court in the aforesaid case in para No. 7 has observed thus :- “ It is true that the adjudication made by the Civil Court on the reference has to be regarded as an award, whether an enhanced compensation is given or not. But in that event the Court should consider the material on record, even if the party is absent and has failed to adduce evidence. Unless the material on record is considered the order cannot be said to be an adjudication. In the instant case the ground given for the dismissal of reference by the Civil Court is that the applicant (present revision petitioner) remained absent and did not adduce any evidence to show that a proper compensation was not paid to him and that he is entitled to more compensation than paid. The above order clearly shows that the reference was dismissed only for the reason of failure of the applicant (present revision petitioner) to adduce evidence. Thus the material on record is not considered by the Civil Court. It is not considered as to how the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was correct. So the order cannot be taken to be an adjudication and therefore the the same cannot be treated to be an award. The order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yevatmal also cannot be treated to be a dismissal of the reference in default. The learned Counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the case could not be dismissed in default also.” (Emphasis supplied). cra170.10 10 Therefore, in my opinion, the Court below should not have rejected the references, on the ground of failure of the revision petitioners to adduce evidence. Yet in another unreported Judgment in the case of Shri Kamalkar S/o Laxman Suryawanshi V/s. State of Maharashtra, in Civil Revision Application No. 1965 of 2005 and in other two connected matters, this Court has taken a similar view. Therefore, I have no hesitation, to hold that the references filed by the revision petitioners, should not have been dismissed, merely on the ground of failure of the revision petitioners to adduce evidence. 12 I have given due consideration to the submissions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision petitioners and I find considerable force in his arguments. Therefore, in my opinion, the claim of the revision petitioners should not have been discarded/rejected, merely on technicalities of not taking steps for adjudication of the references, not adducing documentary evidence and not impleading the acquiring body as party respondent. The Court below, should have given sufficient and full opportunity to the revision petitioners to put-forth their cases, and after appreciating their contentions at length, the references should have been decided. cra170.10 11 13 In the result, the impugned Judgments and Orders dated 24th June, 2010, passed by the learned IV Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Jalgaon, in L.A.R. Nos.534/2000, 359/2000, 540/2000, 516/2000, 550/2000, 549/2000 and 553/2000, are quashed and set aside, the said references are restored to original file and are remitted back to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon for decision afresh. 14 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assures this Court that the petitioners / applicants herein will appear before the reference Court i.e. C.J.S.D., Jalgaon on 17th August, 2011. He further assures that the applicants / petitioners will produce on record the documents / evidence and will further lead evidence within three months from the first date of hearing. The concerned Court to give full opportunity to the applicants to lead evidence. However, from the first date of hearing, as stated by the Counsel for the applicants, the applicants should produce on record the documents / evidence. The revision applications are allowed to the above extent. The concerned Court to dispose of the aforesaid references, as expeditiously as possible, in any case, within a period of one year from date of receipt of this order. 15 The Registry to send back the record and proceeding, if any, cra170.10 12 immediately to the concerned Court. Rule made absolute in the above terms. The Civil Revision Application is disposed of. ( S.S. SHINDE, J.) Kadam/*