1 wp 7979.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7979 OF 2011 Babasaheb S/o Gundappa Patil, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Bamni, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the District Collector, Osmanabad. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Percolation Tank for Minor Irrigation, Work No. 1, Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. .. Respondents Shri A. V. Patil (Indrale), Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. P. More, A.G.P. for Respondents/State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2 wp 7979.11 2. The petitioner had filed reference U/Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the Court fees of Rs. 7,500/- on 12.11.1998. The petitioner failed to deposit the court fees and as such reference came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2001. The same is assailed in the present petition. 3. Shri A. V. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a rustic person residing in rural village. The advocate for the petitioner could not notice the oder passed by the Court. Inter alia he did not communicate the petitioner about the said fact. The petitioner, as he did not have the knowledge, could not comply the said order. It is only when the petitioner contacted his lawyer recently, the petitioner got the knowledge about the reference been dismissed on the ground of non payment of court fees. Thereafter, the petitioner has immediately filed present petition. The learned counsel contends that the immovable property which was the source of livelihood is acquired and meager sum for the same has been awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as compensation. The petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to contest the reference on merits. The learned counsel further contends that 3 wp 7979.11 even otherwise the reference U/Sec. 18 of the L. A. Act cannot be dismissed for default. For the said purpose the learned counsel relies on the judgment of Apex Court in a case of Khazan Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Union of India reported in 2002 (3) Mh. L. J 259. 4. Shri More, the learned A. G. P. vehemently opposes the petition and contends that the petitioner cannot claim premium over his negligence. The order has been passed in the year 1998 directing the petitioner to pay the court fees and same was not complied. The Court after two and half years of the non compliance of the order dismissed the reference and after 10 years the present petition is filed. The petitioner would also gain by interest U/Sec. 34 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. Shri Patil, the learned counsel on instructions of the petitioner states that, the petitioner would not claim interest U/Sec. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act for a period from the year 2001 to October, 2011 and submits that the petitioner would file an undertaking to that effect before the Reference Court. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have perused 4 wp 7979.11 the order and the proceedings. It appears that the petitioner is an agriculturist, a rustic person residing in interior rural village. In the matters of such kind, such parties who are rustic persons normally rely on their advocate. There is no reason to disbelieve the ground stated by the petitioner. In such circumstances, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner, as the petitioner has also shown bonafides by accepting to waive the interest U/Sec. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the year 2001 to October 2011. In the result I pass the following order. O R D E R A. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. B. The Land Acquisition reference is restored to its original position on condition that the petitioner pays the court fees as directed by the Reference Court on or before 09 th November, 2011. C. The petitioner has also undertaken to file an undertaking with the Reference Court that he would not claim any interest U/Sec. 34 of the L. A. Act, the said undertaking shall be filed on or before 09 th 5 wp 7979.11 November, 2011. Rule is made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs of the present petition. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11