ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.69 OF REVISION APPLICATION NO.69 OF REVISION APPLICATION NO.69 OF 2008 2008 2008 Shri Padmakar Shamrao Chavan, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. At Post Boramani, Tq.Solapur, Dist. Solapur. ...Petitioner (Orig.Applicant). Vs. 1. The Executive Director, Maharashtra Krishna Valley, Pune. 2. The Executive Engineer No.8, Ujani Canal (Ekarukh Upsa Sinchan), Solapur, At Solapur, Dist.Solapur. 3. The State of Maharashtra, (Through Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2, Solapur. 4. The State of Maharashtra, Its representative The District Collector, Dist. Solapur. ...Respondents. (Orig.Opponents) Mr.Surel S. Shah for the petitioner. Ms. Geeta Mulekar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 27th March, 2008 : 27th March, 2008 : 27th March, 2008 ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT:- JUDGMENT:- JUDGMENT:- . By consent heard finally. 2. The land of the Petitioner was acquired by the Respondent No.4 herein for the Ekraukh Upasa Sinchan ( 2 ) Project Boramani. 3. The notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act were received by the Petitioner. 4. The Petitioner immediately filed reference Application with the Respondent No.3 herein. Alongwith the said reference application, the Petitioner had filed an application seeking one month time to pay the Court Fees. 5. By the pursis the Petitioner deposited the balance Court fees some time in January/February 2007. 6. By an order dated 16/10/2007, Respondent No.3 wrongly rejected the application on the ground that though the time of one month granted and the Court fees was not paid within the said period. The application for reference was rejected accordingly. Hence this Civil Revision Application. 7. After going through the record and after hearing both the parties, there is no doubt that the Petitioner had deposited the balance Court fees long before the date of impugned order dated 16/10/2007. ( 3 ) The order is, therefore, wrong and unsustainable. 8. Even otherwise, further going into the matter at this stage in view of the Supreme Court Judgment in Kashi Kashi Kashi Ram Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra 1996(1), Ram Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra 1996(1), Ram Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra 1996(1), Mh.L.J., Mh.L.J., Mh.L.J., 652 652 652 and the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Sambhaji Manaji Chate Vs. State of Sambhaji Manaji Chate Vs. State of Sambhaji Manaji Chate Vs. State of Maharashtra, Maharashtra, Maharashtra, 2003(2) Mh.L.J. 661, 2003(2) Mh.L.J. 661, 2003(2) Mh.L.J. 661, the legitimate claim of the Petitioner cannot be decided in such fashion. I am inclined to allow this Civil Revision Application. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra that the application for reference needs to be decided in accordance with law. 10. The impugned order dated 16th October, 2007 is quashed and set aside. All the points are kept open including of the limitation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 11. The Revision Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) accordingly. . No costs. ( 4 ) (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.) V.MOHTA,J.) V.MOHTA,J.)