1 FA 401..........1994 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 401 OF 1994 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 406 OF 1994 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 3137 OF 2008 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 3138 OF 2008 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 3139 OF 2008 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 182 OF 1997 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.581 OF 1994 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 701 OF 1997 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. M.M.Patil - Beedkar,Advocates for the appellants. Mr.B.J.Sonawane,Asstt.Govt.Pleader for State. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 17/03/2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. The present appellants are the original claimants. Their land was acquired for the Medium Project. The Notification under Section 4 was issued on 1/3/1984. The Award was passed on 24/3/1988. Notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ] was 2 FA 401..........1994 served upon the appellant on 24/3/1988. The claimants were awarded compensation @ Rs. 90/- per R. to Rs. 115/- per R. by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants being dis-satisfied by the said amount of compensation awarded, filed Reference under Section 18 of the said Act. After considering the evidence on record, the Reference Court dismissed the said Reference. The Reference was dismissed on the ground that : (1) the said Reference is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation (2) the claimants had withdrawn the amount without any protest (3) the sale deeds which are certified copies are not admissible in evidence and (4) the contents of the said sale instances are not proved and further the sale are in respect of small piece of fragments, which are not comparable and so also are of different village. 2. The claimants have assailed the said Judgment and Award by filing present Appeals. 3. Mr. M.M.Patil – Beedkar, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that it was erroneous on the part of the Reference Court to hold that the References were filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation from the date of Award. According to the learned counsel, the Reference Court has mis-read the provisions of Section 18 of the said Act while 3 FA 401..........1994 computing the limitation period. According to the learned counsel, the notice under Section 12 ( 2) of the said Act was served to the claimants on 12/5/1988 and 9/5/1988. The Reference was filed on or about 13/6/1988, as such the same was within the period of 42 days as contemplated under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel further contends that just because the endorsement was not made that the amount is withdrawn under protest, that would not amount to waiver of right of the claimant to file Reference for enhanced compensation. The learned counsel further contends that the Reference Court has not considered the other sale instances on record and has also not scanned the evidence led. As such, requested that the same may kindly be set aside. In alternate, Mr. Patil, the learned counsel submits that as all the sale deeds were not considered and the oral evidence was also not properly scanned, the matter be remitted back for the determination of merits regarding the compensation amount. 4. Per contra, Mr. B.J.Sonawane, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader canvassed that the Reference Court has rightly not considered the sale instance of 3 gunthas of land, which is a small fragment. The same can not be said to be comparable sale instance. Some of the sale deeds were after the notification under Section 4 of the said Act, the same also could 4 FA 401..........1994 not have been considered. According to the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader, the claimants in their evidence have nowhere proved the contents of the sale deeds and how the same could be treated as comparable sale instances. In absence of such proof, no error can be found in the Judgment delivered by the Reference Court as far as the quantum of compensation is concerned. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader fairly conceded that taking into account the date of service of notice under Section 12 ( 2) of the said Act, the References are filed well within limitation and the claimants would not loose their rights to file References simply on the ground that there is no endorsement that the claimants have withdrawn the amount under protest. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgment. 6. In light of the submissions advanced and taking into account the dates on record, the finding of the Reference Court that the References are not within limitation, is incorrect. It is not the case that the date of the passing of Award was made known to the claimants. The notice under Section 12 (2) of the said Act was served upon the claimants on 12/5/1988 and the References, as it appears from the record, are filed on 13/6/1988 i.e. well within the period of limitation as enshrined under Section 18 of the 5 FA 401..........1994 said Act. In light of the above, it can not be held that the References filed by the claimants were beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 7. Simply because the record does not show any endorsement that the claimants have withdrawn the amount under protest, that would not come in the way of the claimants to prosecute the legal remedy available to them and the same would not be an impediment for entertaining the References. 8. As per Section 51-A of the Indian Evidence Act [ For short, ‘ Evidence Act ’ ] the certified copies of the sale deeds are directly admissible in evidence and it can not be said that the rigours of the Evidence Act would apply stricto senso to such proceedings. In light of the fact that the certified copies of the sale deeds were on record, the Reference Court was expected to consider the same. From the perusal of the Judgment, it is manifest that the sale deeds on record have not been considered nor the oral evidence has also been discussed. In view of that, the Reference Court has failed in its duty to scan and appreciate the total evidence on record, oral as well as documentary. In light of the same, I find it appropriate to relegate the parties to the Reference Court. It is also found that the State has also not led any evidence in the matter. The parties shall be at liberty to adduce the 6 FA 401..........1994 additional evidence. 9. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned Judgment and Award and relegate the parties to the Reference Court for deciding the References afresh holding that the References are within limitation. The claimants have right to file Reference and the certified copies of the sale deed are admissible in evidence in view of Section 51-A of the Evidence Act. However, the Reference Court would consider on its own merits as to whether the said sale deeds are comparable sale instances and the weightage to be attached to it on its own merits. The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 7/4/2011. Taking into account the fact that the matters are pending since long, I direct the Reference Court to decide the said References within six (6) months from the date of their appearance. The First Appeals are disposed with aforesaid directions and observations. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Reference Court forthwith. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/FA 401............1994