mca1164.10.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLN. NO.1164/2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.333/2001 (D) Gopal Babulal Choudhari -vs- State of Maharashtra ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri A.S. Kilor, counsel for the applicant. Shri Patel, AGP for the non-applicant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 04.10.2011. By this application, the applicant seeks a review of the judgment dated 15th of April, 2010. Few facts giving rise to the review application are stated thus. The applicant was the owner of agricultural land in Khamgaon and the land was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for construction of a by-pass road. The Section 4 Notification was published on 12th of December, 1985. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award and issued notice to the applicant-claimant. The said notice was received by the applicant on 20th of March, 1987. A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 4th of May, 1987. The reference Court decided the matter on an appreciation of the evidence on mca1164.10.odt 2/4 record and granted compensation at the rate of Rupees Five Lakhs per hectare to the applicant-claimant. The State had challenged the judgment passed by the reference Court in a first appeal. It was canvassed before this Court in the first appeal that the reference was barred by limitation as the notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act was received on 20th of March, 1987 and the last date of filing of reference was 1st of May, 1987, whereas the reference was filed on 4th of May, 1987. This Court after hearing the counsel for the State, held that the reference was barred by limitation. This Court further found that the reference Court had granted proper compensation to the applicant-claimant at Rupees Five Lakhs per hectare and there was no need to interfere with that finding. However, since this Court had found that the reference was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation, the first appeal was allowed by the judgment dated 15th of April, 2010. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the applicant-claimant and it is also not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the last date of filing of the reference was 1st of May, 1987, but since the 1st of May, 1987 was a State holiday for ‘Maharashtra Din’ and since the 2nd and 3rd of May, 1987 were holidays as at the relevant time there was a five days week in the Government Departments, the applicant-claimant could not have filed the reference application on 1st, 2nd and 3rd of May, 1987. At the mca1164.10.odt 3/4 relevant time, when the first appeal was worked out on 15th of April, 2010, the counsel for the applicant-claimant was not present and since neither the Assistant Government Pleader or this Court was aware about the calendar for the year 1987, it was believed that the reference was barred by limitation as it ought to have been filed on 1st of May, 1987 and was actually filed on 4th of May, 1987. The learned counsel for the applicant-claimant has, however, rightly relied on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act to substantiate his submission that the reference could not have been filed on 1st, 2nd and 3rd of May, 1987 and those days ought to have been excluded while computing the limitation for filing the reference application. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the reference application filed by the applicant- claimant was not barred by limitation as it was presented on the first day after the State holidays on 1st, 2nd and 3rd of May, 1987. Since there appears to be a manifest error in the judgment dated 15th of April, 2010 in this regard, in view of the fact that the calendar of the year 1987 was not known and the counsel for the applicant-claimant was not present to explain this fact, it would be necessary to review the judgment dated 15th of April, 2010 and dismiss First Appeal No.333/2001 filed by the State of Maharashtra as this Court has now found that the reference application was not barred by limitation and this Court had arrived at a conclusion that the grant of compensation of Rupees Five Lakhs per hectare was just and proper. mca1164.10.odt 4/4 Hence, Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1164/2010 is allowed. The judgment dated 15th of April, 2010 in First Appeal No.333/2001 is reviewed. The first appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE